THOMAS O’CONNOR - OUIL501 CONTEXT OF PRACTICE: SHOULD CONTROVERSIAL POLITICAL CARTOONS BE A DYING ART?
This question is posed in both senses of the phrase ‘dying art’. Firstly, the concept of the entire political cartoon sphere being whisked off into the abyss, never to be seen again and the more realistic viewpoint acknowledging it’s not ethically correct for tragic attacks towards cartoonists in any era, challenging our basic right of freedom of speech. You could in fact replace the word ‘political’ in the title with ‘satirical’, but what’s a satirical cartoon without the controversy? In the dulcet tones of Meatloaf, the Nobel literature laureate, illustrator and activist Gunter Grass took the words right out of my mouth, when declaring to the Paris Review that “for me, writing, drawing and political activism are three separate pursuits; each has its own intensity. I happen to be especially attuned to and engaged with the society in which I live. Both my writing and my drawing are invariably mixed up with politics, whether I want them to be or not” (Grass, G in Gaffney, E, 1991) and like Gunter I deem it a constant necessity to push politics to the nth degree, through whatever means and devices, be it an online blog or a pen, some paper and a piece of tape. It’s a necessary trend in the development of mankind. Understanding the world evokes the needs for change, to quote Alexander Hamilton “Those who stand for nothing, fall for anything.” (Hamilton, A in Warren, MD, 2005: p261) This is simply a sharp inquisitive double-edged question into whether the content of a cartoon needs consent, and also whether the reaction should ever entail use of a sword or any other gruesome hostility.
Historically the political cartoon hasn’t gone without its criticism. It’s said Hogarth’s back raising classic depicting the poor drinking themselves to death ‘Gin Lane’ (Fig.1) was actually a print enlisted by the government. In order to gain momentum for the ‘Gin Act’ they were trying to push through parliament, limiting the sale of the heroin of it’s day to licensed establishments. This raises the point that political cartoons aren’t always overtly political, they can also push the boundaries of social commentary as a direct response to the
political policies that society abides to, for or against. Contemporary cartoonist Martin Rowson claims that “to a large extent we understand the 18th century through Hogarth and Gillray’s eyes” (Rowson, M, 2015) validating the point that the image-makers can also serve a purpose as image-breakers. James Gillray, also a leading British satirist of his time was dubbed the father of the political cartoon, with Hogarth the hypothetical grandfather, whom he was much revered by. “Napoleon said Gillray’s depictions of him did him more damage than a dozen generals.” (Rowson, M, 2015) but even such a patriotic illustrator didn’t evade hostile response and constant fear of imprisonment. Which poses another question, is inflicting mental damage with imagery on par with physical violence? Undeterred he realised visually ridiculing politicians emphasises the importance of their decisions, and in turn the publics perception of them.
Such examples leave it impossible not to draw the comparisons between anarchists and artists, principally cartoonists. Both promote consciousness and carry a hefty weight of radical rebellion. Although it’s important to clarify that anarchism isn’t always a choice and can be a movement that you’re backed into, in the same manner a cartoonist is compelled to depict their vision. Over a century ago Russian activist Pëtr Kropotkin stated “Anarchism was born among the people; and it will continue to be full of life and creative power only as long as it remains a thing of the people.” (Kropotkin, P, 1906) and same theory could againbe implemented with the cartoon. Campaigners turn their thoughts into action, as you’d see a cartoonist satirically illustrate a scene. If the French wanted rebel they’d flood into the streets and do it, whereas the British would generally opt to do it through comics. Which due to their nature arguably need to be graphic in every sense, to have any impact. The real question is that should we all have the right to act compulsively on our principles without horrific consequences? A prime example would be Naji Al-Ali, a Palestinian Illustrator noted for the political criticism of the Arab regimes, who was subsequently and unjustifiably murdered on the streets on London, 1987.
Intuitively we must continue to finalise our own conclusions, without intimidation and passively accepting what’s presented as normal. Typically in his 1945 essay ‘Freedom of the Press’ George Orwell put forward a case for free speech, “if liberty means anything at all it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear” (Orwell, G in Hume, M, 2012: p7) and this makes perfect sense as a lover of liberty and free speech absolutist. More recently philosopher Jacques Rancière proclaimed “doing art is displacing art’s borders, just as doing politics means displacing the borders of what is acknowledged as the political” (Rancière, J in Downey, A. 2014: p11) and in a sense all art could be perceived as political, as anything can be utilised in an argument. To my mind art obsolete from danger, can never be regarded as great. Building on this, renowned German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel put it eloquently when stating “when art is removed from a zone of safety, it may still remain very good art indeed, and also very popular art, but its effect upon our existence will vanish” (Hegel, G in Wind, E, 1963: p11) he also explained that “when art becomes pure it ceases to be serious, and in that consists its final splendour.“ (Hegel, G in Wind, E, 1963: p15) highlighting the constant need for satire in art and remains highly significant to this day. Our greatest risk is that we stop taking risks.
“Plato believed - and he unmistakably said so - that great evil ‘springs out of a fullness of nature… rather than from any deficiency, whereas weak natures are scarcely capable of any very great good or very great evil’. It is obvious from this remark that Plato was spared the kind of experience which moved Jacob Burckhardt, the great Swiss historian, to define mediocrity as the truly diabolical force in the world.” (Wind, E, 1963: p5) This has a direct correlation to a recent Laurence Zeegan article in Creative Review, raising the question why make a statement if you having nothing truly to say “Illustration has become entrenched in navel-gazing and self-authorship, says Lawrence Zeegan. Obsessed with its own craft, it has withdrawn from society’s big debates to focus on the chitchat of inner sanctum nothingness. It’s time for the
profession to stop pleasing itself and engage with the world outside.” (Zeegan, L, 2012)
If you deem these opinions invalid, then you’ll be dejected to realise that they’re also reinforced by compelling French 19th Century poet Charles Bauldelaire who sounded “the glories of art are inseparable from risk” (Wind, E, 1963: p4) he fashioned violent opposition to the established dogma of rigid structure, during this era it was vital poets were free to create art forms with their unique subjective experience. Although the classic ‘Art & Anarchy’ also exposes that Plato “advises us to appoint a drastic censor” (Wind, E, 1963: p4) and this is rightly dismissed as a plausible idea with Wind attributing censorship to pruning stating “it gives new strength to what it cuts down, and if it attacks the root it destroys the plant it wants to save.” (Wind, E, 1963: p4) Reiterating that risk is intrinsic to art and without it, art withers.
Whilst deliberating the general right to be controversial it’s not feasible to avoid the futile terror, which continuously rears its ugly head. Deriving from initial drawings of Muhammad published by Danish newspaper JyllandsPosten, 30 September 2005. This isn’t an issue I’ll dwell on and further sensationalise. However, it’s important to note that before the Charlie Hebdo attack, the weekly satirist French magazine was only acknowledged by a scarce few and appreciated by even fewer. Whilst the British are gently prodding the occasionally garish caricatures of David Cameron & Co, the French take a merde on anyone and everyone. It’s difficile to condone provocative jibes at religion; as faith isn’t something I regard as a remotely humorous issue. In fact, I find the entire subject bland, so anything attributed to the matter is distasteful to me. Attempting to comprehend what the labelled perpetrators end goals of the cartoons are is extremely clouded, other than the reheating the hot potato of ‘Islamphobia’.
That said, however hard to envisage we need to understand one’s offensively bad taste is another’s sense of humour. There’s no one size fits all with
comedy. Baudelaire questions “what is the good of curbing the sensuality, shaping the intellect, securing the supremacy of reason? Imagination lies in wait as the most powerful enemy. Naturally raw, and enamoured of absurdity, it breaks out against all civilizing restraints like a savage who takes delight in grimacing images.” (Baudelaire in Wind, E, 1963: p4) I’ve drawn the conclusion that the right to rigorously interrogate the ideologies of any religion suspected not to follow any logic should remain a valued humanistic right. The right to be offensive should have no limits and never warrant violence in response. Obviously the murderous reaction is ethically wrong, but steps may have been taken to avoid atrocities; in this instance there may have been more valid approaches to exhaust before launching a hostile satire assault. I’m hasty to agree with Mikhail Kalashnikov when he stated, “The fact that people die because of an AK-47 is not because of the designer, but because of politics.” (Kalashnikov, M in Burgoyne, P, 2011) Therefore it’s the politicians who should be actively pursuing resolutions to world issues. Eradicating any inclination for a cartoonist to exert their frustration towards a particular matter.
Cartoons should remain emotionally striking as any other art form with no limits, and equally as expressive. Evidence of this is a Tom Toles’ cartoon produced for the Washington Post back in 2006, where he expected criticism for drawing the quadruple amputee (Fig.2), stating "It was graphic, no doubt about it, but it drove home a point, that there are critically ill patients that certainly need to be attended to." (Toles, T in Kurtz, H, 2006) I interpret this as an attempt at dark humour, with a purpose to over amplify a real issue. If the character just had an arm in the sling then the image wouldn’t have generated any controversy, nor would it have drawn people into a debate over the state of the US health system, and the politicians behind it. He spoke further on the matter claiming, "It is the nature of cartooning that someone can read an analogy a cartoon uses to mean things other than what was intended. The only way to avoid that problem is to draw cartoons that have no impact." (Toles, T in Kurtz, H, 2006)
Cartoon is comedy, and we should never be scared of using comedy as a vehicle for our message to convey greater significance. Although, it’s said that laughter is always the first casualty of war. In Hitler’s case, this was devastatingly accurate as the Nazi’s passed laws in 1933 and 1934 that banned jokes criticising the regime, although anti-Semitic “humour” was still encouraged. On the contrary to restricting a certain brand of humour “one of the popular myths of the late Communist regimes in Eastern Europe was that there was a department of the secret police whose function was (not to collect, but) to invent and put in circulation political jokes against the regime and its representatives, as they were aware of jokes’ positive stabilising function” (Žižek, S, 2014; p1) and it’s easy to determine the value of this controversy, promoting healthy discussion and humanising the candidates, rather than dictating non-malleable ideas.
In the broader context of humour, political commentator Molly Ivins in 1991 acknowledged “satire is traditionally the weapon of the powerless against the powerful.” (Evans, M in Petri, A, 2015) This statement is definitely in tune with modern thinker Noam Chomsky’s notion of anarchy, being an attempt to change a world built on greed and hatred from the ground up. Similarly aligned Chief Editors Ian Hislop’s principle message behind the notorious satirical magazine Private Eye, this is that on a weekly basis the overwhelming majority of “politicians are corrupt, deluded, incompetent, second-rate and hypocritical” (Kettle, M, 2015) which raises the point if we lived in the idealistic world, there would be no reason to pursue change by targeting the powerful.
When you consider this still highly relevant Orwell statement "Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery is torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself. Progress in our world will be progress towards more pain.” (Orwell, G, 1949: p573) Is work
deemed harmful and offensive adding toxic fuel to an untameable fire? The impact of image has the unique emotional force to discombobulate otherwise rationally thinking people. Laughing questionably about an idea isn’t a crime, taking somebody else’s life is. At this stage it’s crucial to consider the thoughts of the contemporary philosopher John Morreall “the person with a sense of humour can never be fully dominated, even by a government which imprisons him for his ability to laugh at what is incongruous in the political situation will put him above it to some extent, and will preserve a measure of his freedom-if not of movement, at least of thought.” (Morreall, J, 1983: p101) I concur with Anthony Ashley Cooper, the Third Earl of Shaftesbury in his Essay (1709) theorising that “the nations appetite for comedy is formed in direct proportion to the degree of political oppression at work there.” (Shaftesbury, AAC In Stott, A, 2014: p98) The greater the trepidation within politics then heightens the agitation of the artist to take action accordingly.
“Perhaps if nothing else today has any future, our laughter may have yet have future.” (Nietzsche, F In Stott, A, 2014: p171) resonates the fact that If we didn’t laugh at political situations and turmoil then we’d probably cry, I’m implying that politics is a genre of comedy in itself. The political cabinet should be rebranded the political cabaret, and should be illustrated as we conceive them, based on their demeanours. As Aristotle puts it eloquently, “Comedy is, as we have said, an imitation of characters of a lower type- not, however, in the full sense of the word bad, the ludicrous being merely a subdivision of the ugly. It consists in some defect or ugliness, which is not painful or destructive. To take an obvious example, the comic mask is ugly and distorted, but does not imply pain.” (Aristotle in Heath, M, 1996: p9)
I’d adhere my earlier theory that cartoon’s primary target is comedy, a caricature putting the face of a joke on the body of the ugly truth. It’s reasonable to presume Steve Bell is currently the cruellest pen in the business. Savaging politicians for decades and a master of probing at political tendencies. Employing the individual’s quirks to accentuate their questionable
actions. The mad eye is the lynch pin of his Tony Blair representation, he states “his mad eye does stare, but not nearly as much as I draw it” (Bell, S, 2007) admitting it’s deliberately offensive, but it’s much more than that, he’s implying Tony Blair is as mad as his eye (Fig.3). Here’s a relevant note from Goffman for any aspiring politicians “Choose your self-presentations carefully, for what starts out as a mask may become your face.” (Goffman, E in Smith, ER, 2015: p123) Alternatively if you wanted to bank on American Cartoonist Mike Peters vote, you could err on the side of the grotesque, as he provided insight to his voting habits, “When I go into voting booth do I vote for the best president? Or the slime bucket that will make my life as a cartoonist wonderful.” (Mike Peters in Gauge, S, 2011: p186)
In summary, it’s important to methodically establish your outright goals before flexing the right of freedom of speech in a comedic sense. George Bernard Shaw poignantly put it that “if you’re going to tell people the truth, you better make them laugh: otherwise they’ll kill you” (Shaw, GB in Stott, A, 2014: p149) and this highlights the risk involved in causing offence. The risk needs to be weighed against Baudelaire’s thoughts, by taking great risks you are presented with great rewards. For me satire is a risk that targets stupidity and deserves a place in any political discourse. Cartoonists can be honest without being loud, and passionate without being rude. It’s a legitimate chance for them to respond to any offense they may take, tackling anxieties and reacting to urgencies. Launching discussions as ‘controversationalists’, prompting public participation in politics. Modern day illustrator and activist Bob & Roberta Smith raises the point “I think the artist’s role is only about questioning” (Smith, B&R, 2015]) and by the artist harnessing this responsibility to challenge society and misconceptions, the audience then have the opportunity to decide for themselves. If creativity is suppressed we won’t know what constitutes a great cartoon, as it would be restricted from ever being produced.
Freedom of expression is the solution, not the problem. It should be duly noted every smidgen of freedom we enjoy today is a by-product of some initial dismay. Free speech advocate Salman Rushdie puts forth “What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.” (Rushdie, S in Duffy, J, 2006) Suggesting that causing upset is merely the price we pay for trying to reach out to one another, sometimes we need to seek a confrontational path as a service to the greater good. As previously established risky satirical art follows the same principles of anarchy, which leads to it being branded a threat to the state apparatus. If it were outlawed who would be left to draw the line and erase the political cartoon? Deciding whether we should be outraged at something we haven’t even seen. The importance of this commonly misattributed to Voltaire quote “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (May, EB, 1906: p199) remains crucial to modern society, to preserve the effective satire you need to defend the ‘wrong’ kind. Free speech is essential in any day and age, we can’t ignore the scope to artistically create value from any of our thoughts.
Functioning
humanity
requires
functioning
community
and
functioning community requires functioning political cartoons. Let these cartoons live and let live!
BIBLIOGRAPHY IMAGES Fig.1
Hogarth, W (1751) in Jones, J (2012) ‘Death by drinking: William Hogarth's Gin Lane’ [Internet] London, The Guardian. Available from: <http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/picture/2012/sep/12/williamhogarth-gin-lane> [Accessed 20 November 2015]. Fig.2
Toles, T in Kurtz, H. (2006) ‘Joint Chiefs Fire At Toles Cartoon On Strained Army’ [Internet] Washington, Washington Post. Available from: <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR200602 0102465.html> [Accessed 01 March 2016]. Fig.3
S, Bell (2008) ‘Tony's the kind of guy who looks you straight in the eye and tells the truth’ [Internet] London, The Guardian. Available from: <http://www.theguardian.com/world/cartoon/2009/jan/14/tony-blair-georgebush> [Accessed 20 November 2015].
BOOKS Hamilton, A in Warren, MD (2005) ‘Into The Rabbit Hole’ Indianapolis, Dog Ear Publishing. p261 Orwell, G in Hume, M (2012) ‘There is No Such Thing as a Free Press: ...and we need one more than ever’ Exeter, Imprint Academic. p7 Rancière, J in Downey, A (2014) ‘Art & Politics Now’ London, Thames & Hudson Ltd. p11 Hegel, G in Wind, E (1963) ‘Art & Anarchy’ London, Faber & Faber Limited. p11 Hegel, G in Wind, E (1963) ‘Art & Anarchy’ London, Faber & Faber Limited. p15 Wind, E (1963) ‘Art & Anarchy’ London, Faber & Faber Limited. p5 Wind, E (1963) ‘Art & Anarchy’ London, Faber & Faber Limited. p4 Baudelaire in Wind, E (1963) ‘Art & Anarchy’ London, Faber & Faber Limited. p4 Žižek, S (2014) ‘Žižek's Jokes: Did you hear the one about Hegel and negation?’ Massachusetts, MIT Press. p1 Orwell, G (1949) ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ New York, Haughton Miffler Harcout. p573 Morreall, J (1983) ‘Taking Laughter Seriously’ Albany, SUNY Press. p101 Shaftesbury, AAC In Stott, A (2014) ‘Comedy, The New Critical Idiom’ New York, Routledge. p98 Nietzsche, F In Stott, A (2014) ‘Comedy, The New Critical Idiom’ New York, Routledge. p171 Aristotle in Heath, M (1996) ‘Poetics, trans’ Harmondsworth. Penguin. p9 Goffman, E in Smith, ER (2015) ‘Social Psychology’ New York, Physcology Press. p123 Peters, M in Gauge, S (2011) ‘Political Wit’ Chichester, Summersdale. p186 Shaw, GB in Stott, A (2014) ‘Comedy, The New Critical Idiom’ New York, Routledge. p149 Hall, EB (1906) ‘Friends of Voltaire’ London, Smith Elder & Company. p199
INTERNET Grass, G in Gaffney, E. (1991) ‘The Art of Fiction No. 124’ [Internet] Paris, The Paris Review. Available from: <http://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/2191/the-art-of-fiction-no-124gunter-grass> [Accessed 02 January 2016]. Rowson, M. (2015) ‘Satire, sewers and statesmen: why James Gillray was king of the cartoon.’ [Internet] London, The Guardian. Available from: http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/mar/21/satire-sewers-andstatesmen-james-gillray-king-of-cartoon [Accessed 20 November 2015]. Kropotkin, P. (1903) ‘Modern Science and Anarchism’ [Internet] Unknown, The Anarchist Library. Available from: <https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-modern-science-andanarchism> [Accessed 01 March 2016]. Zeegan, L. (2012) ‘Where is the content? Where is the comment?’ [Internet] United Kingdom, Creative Review. Available from: <https://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/ 2012/february/ where-is-thecontent-where-is-the-comment-2/> [Accessed 20 November 2015]. Toles, T in Kurtz, H. (2006) ‘Joint Chiefs Fire At Toles Cartoon On Strained Army’ [Internet] Washington, Washington Post. Available from: <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2006/02/01/AR200602 0102465.html> [Accessed 01 March 2016]. Kalashnikov, M in Burgoyne, P. (2011) ‘Designed to Kill’ [Internet] United Kingdom, Creative Review. Available from: <http://www.creativereview.co.uk/cr-blog/2011/december/designed-to-kill-2/ [Accessed 02 January 2016]. Kettle, M. (2015) ‘Heard The One About The Corrupt Lying Politician?’ [Internet] London, The Guardian. Available from: <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/25/corrupt-lyingpolitics-satire> [Accessed 20 November 2015]. Evans, M in Petri, A. (2015) ‘What is the aim of satire?’ [Internet] Washington, Washington Post. Available from: <https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2015/01/09/what-is-theaim-of-satire/> [Accessed 20 November 2015]. Anonymous. (2015) ‘Prophet Mohammed Cartoons Controversy’ [Internet] London, The Telegraph. Available from: <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/ 11341599/Prophet-Muhammad-cartoons-controversy-timeline.html> [Accessed 01 March 2016].
Smith, B&R. (2015) ‘Bob & Roberta Smith’ [Internet] York, Aesthetica Magazine. Available from: <http://www.aestheticamagazine.com/interviewbob-roberta-smith/> [Accessed 02 January 2016]. Rushide, S in Duffy, J. (2006) ‘The right to be downright offensive’ [Internet] London, BBC. Available from: <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4114497.stm> [Accessed 20 November 2015]. VIDEO Gravett, P. (2007)‘Comic Britannia. PART 1/3 FUN FACTORY’ London, BBC. Gravett, P. (2007) ‘Comic Britannia. PART 3/3 X-RATED’ London, BBC. Bell, S. (2007)‘05/05/2007 Culture Show’ London, BBC.