The Eye of the Beholder
Sonny Bunch makes a good point around the double standards being applied to the Obama-as-Joker posters that have been making news lately vis-a-vis the response that similar Bush-as-Joker “art” received from certain quarters. I missed the Bush lampooning, largely because I was neck deep in work at the time and had little energy to pay attention to much else, but I’ll admit that looking at the two images side-by-side, the Obama visage elicits a different and more prominent reaction from me.
Other folks have already pointed out the general incoherence in terms of the poster’s message and I’m in agreement with Sonny and others who find the racial implications of the poster somewhat unpersuasive. As far as I can tell, the poster is an appeal to pure visual association and as far as that tool goes, the Obama version is much more effective and therefore much more emotive.
Look, what made Heath Ledger’s Joker so simultaneously captivating and disturbing was the reality of the presentation. Granted, the Dark Knight was not a movie grounded in an overwhelming sense of loyalty to realism, but Ledger’s performance was eery in its authenticity. You paid attention to every second that Ledger was on screen as the Joker because you could see that he had tapped into malevolent and largely subconscious undercurrents of raw and terrifying emotion that we expend no small amount of energy civilizing and socializing out of ourselves.
In short, there is an unresolved part of each of us that can identify with the unbridled animus towards destruction that Ledger’s Joker embraced and advocated.
Part of the effectiveness of Ledger’s performance in that regard was how grimly straight forward it went about showing us that side of ourselves. Unlike Bale’s Batman, with his costume and gadgets, or Eckhardt’s Two-Face, with his horribly overdone burns, Ledger’s Joker was a guy wearing a bad suit, with his face painted white, lipstick around his lips, and horrible scars marking the starting point of his path away from (and ultimately back into confrontation with) society.
Plain, simple, and grisly.
When I look at the two images that Sonny presents, I see that same appeal in the Obama version, but none of it in the Bush version. The Bush image hearkens to the earlier, sanitized, cartoon version of the Joker that many of us watched on t.v. as kids. It is an unpleasant, unflattering, and unfair commentary on Bush’s impact while in office, to be sure, but it reflects, ultimately, a distinct unreality that is hard to take very seriously.
Hence the stark juxtaposition of reactions I feel in regards to the two: stomach churning in the case of Obama, eye-rolling in the case of Bush.
But, when push comes to shove, I’m troubled that either image exists, frankly. Not because art doesn’t have a roll in commenting on social and political issues of the day. And not because I’m of the opinion that all art should leave a warm feeling in our tummy. But rather that, as was the case with Ledger’s Joker, both images primarily tell us a story about ourselves.
Critiquing our political discourse is a favourite pass time of mine, but these images are both relevant examples of why I continue to do so. It is disturbing to me that the demonization and base appeal to reactive and often violent emotions is a ubiquitous driver in our political discourse. While it is true that the use of images like these two is present as a front and center feature of our political discourse, it is also true that images like these are produced on both sides of the ideological street because for many people they work. And when I say “work”, I mean that they succeed in short circuiting a grounded and relational dialogue of options and supplant it with a dangerously unhinged rhetorical mindset that encourages and promises the worst sides of our nature.
Insofar as the presence and influence of these images seek to imitate the efforts of Ledger’s Joker, they succeed only too well by bringing out, reinforcing, and justifying precisely the kind of emotional anarchy upon which the Joker thrived. And in doing so, we are all the worse for their victories.
Update: apparently sightings of the Obama poster have been going on in L.A. since April as reported by Bedlam Magazine, but have only recently gone viral since reported by radio talkshow host Tammy Bruce. Bedlam recently updated that the originator of the image seems to be a young Palestinian student living in Chicago named Firas Khateeb, but that Khateeb is not thought to be behind the posters.
Related posts...
Tip o’ the Hat
Gifts of Gab
- Pardon. In the Sarah Pali...
- The emphasis is on "claim...
- I don't have any particul...
- Sarah Palin!Seriously. On...
- "When in actual fact, we ...
- Sorry, CA has proven time...
- That "not repudiating the...
- If we're going to run wit...
- Ok Joseph, I think we und...
- Man, I keep trying to com...
-
30 comments
Oddly, I have the opposite reaction: The Bush version looks far more sinister while the Obama version looks clownish. Presumably, the Bush version was attempting to ape Jack Nickolson’s Joker rather than Caesar Romero’s.
Interesting! I can see how the Bush images is supposed to look sinister, but it just comes off as so… rigged and biased to me. I have a hard time looking at it and not just thinking, “Oh vey, Bush derangement syndrome strikes again,” (taking into account how poorly I tend to look at Bush’s time in office). The Obama version just hits me at a gut level.
I wonder what the contexts at play are for each of us that are driving such different reactions.
Thanks for sharing, James.
I would also note that, if you’re correct, I think it’s fairly uncontroversial to say that between Nicholson’s Joker and Ledger’s Joker, Nicholson’s was much more clownish.
I always find it amusing to see sides “flip” (or, if not really flip, at least find something worth discussing when, before, they didn’t see it as worthy of comment).
The folks who argued against Bush-as-joker are now, unsurprisingly, inordinately delighted at the Obama poster.
The folks who (one presumes, anyway) enjoyed such phrases as “Bushitler” (and “Busheathledgerasthejoker”) can be found explaining how the new poster is completely disrespectful (if not racist).
For my part, I kind of hope that the next 12 or 13 elections are all single-term ones and we get new Joker posters every 4 years.
And we can watch people explain how, no, this has ceased to be/suddenly become a valid form of protest (and vice-versa) in real time.
That said, they’re both creepy.
“And when I say ‘work’, I mean that they succeed in short circuiting a grounded and relational dialogue of options and supplant it with a dangerously unhinged rhetorical mindset that encourages and promises the worst sides of our nature.”
All to true, and sadly nothing new.
From my self-induced blindness regarding the sins of the left, I see the right as far superior in their ability to short circuit rational discussion. But I know the right could muster examples to counter my Joe McCarthy, fluoridated water, black helicopters, Clintons killed Vince Foster, G. Beck, R. Limbaugh, tea parties, examples, and on and on.
I guess we are lucky that there is the League. No matter what Helen Rittelmyer thinks.
Scott H. Payne
August 4th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Ha, well played, Bob!
I dunno? I thought the poster kinda caught the spirit of the regime.
Dachau anyone?
Mark Thompson
August 4th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Meh. Even if you buy into the “Obama as Socialist” line of thought, the poster doesn’t make a lot of sense. The Joker was supposed to be an agent of chaos; socialism is, by definition, an attempt to centrally plan, to impose a particular vision of order on an inherently disorderly world. It’s centrally planned order as opposed to Hayekian spontaneous order, but it’s still the opposite of chaos.
Bob Cheeks
August 4th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Mark, Voegelin thought that ’socialism’ as a ideology who’s failure was rooted in Comte’s ‘philosophie positive’ reaching denouement in the perverse dogmatism of ‘positive science.’ The constructions of these ideologies (including Obama’s ’socialism’ ) interpret the doctrinal mode as a ‘mode of truth’ inherent in human consciousness which are a mere illusion and the result of ‘tricks.’
The visage of the Joke utilized above is, I think, a clear example of the doctrinaire mind, distorted by a deficient mode of existence where truth experienced must be excluded from the horizon of reality.
You guys are a tough crowd!
Scott H. Payne
August 4th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
A good response, Bob. I appreciate the thought presented. To better wrap my head around your suggestion, what doctrine do you see the Joker as representing insofar as the doctrinal mind of constructed truths you mention above seems to be one of positive construction?
Or am I missing it altogether?
Bob Cheeks
August 4th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Scott, I think the doctrinaire existence has a pronounced impression on the workings of the mind. The doctrinaire thinking has to exclude truth from the horizon of reality but what saves us and allows us to recognize it (if we choose) is that it can’t be removed from reality itself.
One example of doctrinaire thinking is the adage that we “live in a post-Christian age.” This is a very general symbolization of a recent phenomenon experienced as an egophanic revolt that has widely captured academics in science (for example.) It was a revolt against theology and metaphysics that Voegelin tells us did not “recover the tension of existence” that was derived from symbols that in the end led to a “new doctrine” of world-immanent awareness e.g. the hypostatization of the immanent pole of existence e.g. the ain’t no God, dude, so don’t worry, be happy.
The ideologue, Voegelin writes, “appeals to the reality, not the truth experienced….” He is a man of action who with a “shell of doctrine (Obama’s socialist principles), devoid of an engendering reality, and applying a heavy dose of libido dominandi, by force of his personality-in the style of Nietzsche’s symbol of self-salvation-he assumes the role of Savior, or Superman, or the progenitor of a new utopian dreamworld where, for example, medicine is free but you may be required for the sake of the Superman to sacrifice your life.
“We can characterize the ideologue’s ‘post-Christian age,’ therefore,” Voegelin writes, “as a symbol engendered by his libidinous dream of self-salvation.”
Thus the Joker visage is perfectly suited to our president, because it reflects a profound distortion of being and we haven’t even begun the inquiry related to the Gifted One’s dialectical speculation!
Scott, you fellows are gifted dudes, but my criticism is related to that which is distorted and why. It was Voegelin’s project his entire life…a search for the truth of reality. You guys are dealing with particularities, you’re allowing ‘them’ to frame the question…it’s all much simpler than that.
greginak
August 4th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
wow that was some quality ironic pseudo-intellectual patter.
you were trying to be ironic and satirical, weren’t you?
Bob Cheeks
August 5th, 2009 at 2:36 am
If you’re going to patter,
and you want it to matter,
you gotta be ironic and pseudo-intellectual,
if you wanna be effectual!
Scott H. Payne
August 4th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I’m sorry, Bob, the efficacy of your comment has been crushed by the weight of Godwin’s Law. Best of luck in all future endeavors…
Jaybird
August 4th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
A good point. Instead of “socialism”, “arbeit macht frei” would have done a better job of making people’s heads explode.
That said, “Tovarisch” would have been much more subtle and still ran with the whole “socialism” theme (but a lot further).
All in all, a poor effort on the part of the Obama poster-maker given all of the stuff that they might have done to make people go truly apeshit.
I like Obama and I also like the picture. But the word “socialism” ruins the pictures beauty and adds an element of cornball, so please make my t-shirt with just the picture on it. Thanks.
Scott H. Payne
August 4th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Another interesting reaction. What about the image do you like?
hallo
August 4th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I suppose shock value has something to do with it. (Shocking, but not shockingly offensive.) The picture is hard to glance past, it grabs you a little bit. In general I find the image to be attractive. Something seemingly minor about the image that, for me, works very well is the off center placement of Obama; it adds an artsy fartsy element and makes the image worthy of a wall print.
Wow the stupid is powerful. Socialism is primarily about economics: the state owning all property. There is nothing inherent in socialism that is about controlling every part of a persons life. Most totalitarian states, of all stripes ( see not only the soviet union buy nazi germany, Iran under the Shah, etc), all to control every aspect of a persons life. Socialism, when used by conservatives, means government I don’t like. And the thought, or what passes for a thought, goes on, if it’s government I don’t like then it is oppressive, evil, a dictatorship.
The picture is nothing much it self. Although it does seem a bit dense not to get that there is long history of white people using grotesque caricatures of blacks as a symbol and emblem of racist thought. There is not a similar history of minorities oppressing rich, white, powerful types.
Mark Thompson
August 4th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
“Although it does seem a bit dense not to get that there is long history of white people using grotesque caricatures of blacks as a symbol and emblem of racist thought. There is not a similar history of minorities oppressing rich, white, powerful types.”
Agreed, but that seems to place an almost impossible burden on Obama’s political opponents: how can an Obama opponent caricature Obama without getting accused of racism? Yet, all idealism about raising the tone of political debate aside, caricature has long been one of the most essential and often effective means of expressing opposition to a politician.
Bob
August 4th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
Wow! I see why they pay you the big bucks to post here. Excellent question.
Perhaps caricature will have to be removed from the quiver of Obama opponents. Cops shooting monkeys or comments like “banana eating monkey” are pretty difficult to explain away as politics as usual. Hell, even Cokie Roberts comment criticizing Obama’s vacation destination, Hawaii, as “exotic” provoked censure.
It will take a lot more finesse to caricature Obama than the right as shown so far.
Post racial is a fiction.
Jaybird
August 4th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
We can still use Che’, right?
Bob
August 4th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I did not say Obama was off limits.
Sure, use any Cuban freedom fighter you like.
Michael Drew
August 5th, 2009 at 3:39 am
That’s just tough cookies — good move by the Dems. Rules in political combat are ad hoc, the endeavor to say, “Well it’s okay for their side, why not our side, or it was okay last election, why not this election” is exactly what gets people in trouble. You’ve just got to have a political antenna and know there aren’t any consistent rules.
Michael Drew
August 5th, 2009 at 1:19 pm
And by the way, the same goes for Josh Marshall’s moaning about people “showing up as a mob and shouting people down” at health care (or just general) town halls/listening sessions. I don’t deny this view threatens to send us spiraling down into the depths of political interaction. But it is better to be clear that such a thing is possible; there are no rules preventing it, merely us in our decisions about how to conduct ourselves politically.
(To be clear, JMM isn’t arguing so far as I can tell that the shout-downs cross a red line, but rather that it’s not accurate to say it is the same as what Leftern activists did in the SocSec privatization debate. Right and fair and accurate and proper. But it’s best to be clear that it can all get as bad as we want it to be; we’re the only ones who can stop it…)
I’m realizing may be twisting at windmills in this thread…
Michael Drew
August 5th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
Just to keep the solitary ball rolling… the above is not withstanding the numerous reports of hangings in effigy, death threats, and physical altercations/physical intimidation of members of Congress regarding this issue, all of which absolutely does cross clear lines, which I am going to decline here to define precisely in hopes that there is general agreement that it is abundantly clear that is true, so that definition of the lines is not necessary. (And in relative confidence that no one is following ramblings in any case…)
Oh I agree caricature is part of discourse and I don’t think this poster is over the line. Stupid, but not over the line. I think it would be easy to caricature O for his professorial tendencies or eloquence or apparent belief that America can made into a functioning country. ( part of racist caricatures of blacks has included over sized lips and deformed features. So maybe they need to stay away from that kind of stuff)
Part of moving forward away from our national sins is being sensitive to them. That may make it tougher on critics of the prez, but as the posters on Sonny’s site said “tough”. Our country has a disgraceful history of racism, so critics should steer clear. If they want to be taken seriously and in good faith, just steer clear. That is the way to deal with sensitive subjects and raw emotions. Up here some Iraq War protester defaced a WW2 memorial. Well I agree with the protesters the Iraq War was wrong, but they are still a**holes who crossed the line.
Michael Drew
August 5th, 2009 at 3:41 am
In other words, don’t be dumb or ign’nt.
Late to the game as usual. The poster is hard to walk past. Mostly I think because of the eyes, but as you say the “socialism” ruins it. The Joker is anarchy personified. That’s why he caught on as a bad guy in the first place when it was only kids who read comics. Frankly I would prefer to see a good poster of the president as Alfred E. Newman to compare with the picture of W as Alfred which I think captured him perfectly.
In terms of the racial overtones of the image, I think it’s worth noting, as per the update above, the image’s original creator (though not the creator of the poster) seems to be a Palestinian student residing in Chicago. While it isn’t dispositive of the absence of any intended racial sentiments in the image, the fact that the image seems to have originated with a man of colour certainly adds to the arguments against an overtly racial theme (as opposed to vice versa).