From: Stephen Date stephend999@yahoo.co.uk
I imagine the Federation probably has no interest in art (creativity and totalitarianism being unhappy bedfellows). But If they went for anything I imagine it would be of the Socialist Realist type that flourished under the Soviet Union.
Ah yes, those yummy murals of the united proletariat striving for the greater glory of the Revolution. I do like Soviet art; very .... inspiring.
I find it hard to believe the Federation being totally uninterested in art. All regimes make use of art to promote their ideological position (even democratic ones - take all those Victorian statues of national heroes), totalitarian ones being no exception. They can create their own - as in Soviet socialist realism - or place an ideological gloss over the artistic product of the past, as the Nazis did with Wagner. Creativity and totalitarianism are not completely unhappy bedfellows, so long as the creativity is constrained and directed in the 'right' direction.
As to why we didn't see any statues or the like, as Cheryl asked, there are good (external) reasons for this. Firstly, the action rarely took place in locales where such things could expect to be found. Secondly, there would be the question of what form it would take - statues of whom, for example. I suppose there could be some mileage in having Servalan stand under a statue of Mussolini or the like, but presumably Federation art would be focussed towards Federation icons, and without deliberate explication they would be meaningless to the audience. Thirdly, there is the inevitable cost. "Right, we want Servalan and Travis to speak this bit under a thirty foot bronze statue of Margaret Thatcher dressed as Boadicea but with a laser rifle instead of a spear. How much is in the kitty?" "Er, three quid..."
Neil