ART. why is it, when people discuss the “Charlie Hebdo” attack, they rarely talk about the ART? time to weigh-in … 1.) Killing people is wrong. D’uh. 2.) When did ARTISTIC FREEDOM become FREEDOM FROM SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY? We “AMERICANS” don’t have the language (yet) for the limitations, contradictions, and harmful effects of Free Speech. Westerners (“Americans”, especially) still base our value system on the vague tenets of a bunch of 18th Century, European runaways (a.k.a. “founding fathers”) … so “free speech” and the “right to vote” and the “right to property” and “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” all benefit the status quo, really. As such, whether you’re a high-ranking military officer, a politician, a CEO, an NFL quarterback, an anarchist, or Santa Claus, you’re probably a straight, “able-bodied” and employed, white man. Your free speech exists in a certain FRAME and very simply because of that frame, your free speech HURTS PEOPLE. I’m one of these dudes, too, so I’ll reign myself back into this group … For centuries, our caricatures of negroids, mongloids, jews, retards, and now “terrorists” continue to promote our social reality via our own sacred tenets of “Free Speech.” TRUTH: cartoonists are not an oppressed group. Impoverished and geeky, maybe, but you are free-speaking all over the place. Although it may also be true that illustration has become a lost art, that’s really about as sad as your story gets. I’ll be up-front: I lost my passion for political cartoons a long-time ago. My love is still there but let’s face it, these bite-sized illustrations too easily render divisions—the device of a “quick-read” always runs the risk of undermining the nuanced and multi-dimensional realities of others. Cartoonists exploit this basic aspect as easily as editors exploit a newspaper headline or advertisers exploit the billboard format. There is a reason that art that doesn’t conveniently fit the gallery/museum format (i.e. craft traditions, performance art, community-based art projects) is marginalized. There is a reason that these formats are conventionally balked at, and conveniently under-appreciated—these forums very consistently employ a broader cultural lens and a deeper narrative that takes time and inquiry to appreciate, beyond a snide and calloused reaction. But we don’t teach art in schools and you (my fellow Americans) probably won’t take the time to learn about art that isn’t spray-painted or photoshopped, anyway, so let’s move on … back to those harmless cartoons. Perhaps you’re saying all religions should be abolished, anyway … but then why does the “freedom to speak” overpower the right to “freedom of thought” so conveniently in our direction? That direction being: to confine a very deep, rich, and broad expression of faith, to flat and derogatory caricatures? I propose that we, big-mouthed “Americans”, take our first step back and spend more time pondering and listening. Our free speech not only gets more airtime, it consistently leads to the destruction of the Freedoms of others. Don’t believe me? Thus far, it seems that Americans have a hefty (and bloody) tradition of eradicating cultures, including our own. Our food, art, music, dance, architecture, … very little of these traditions *are* our own and even when such is the case—if it wasn’t ripped from a minority group—then it will certainly be modernized and commodified into another obsolete trend. What we “Americans” have to say just doesn’t run a strong record for being worthwhile, it’s often just LOUDER. Regarding the statements and values of marginalized voices, how can we abolish an entire system of thought/belief for its harms, when there is so much we don’t comprehend about its value? When was the last time you posted a cartoon of a Muslim person feeding/dressing a homeless person or educating women? Those situations certainly exist. Instances of tragedy are just as deserving of our reverence as are the common moments—it’s just that we are hard-wired for sensation and bloodlust. Let’s say you are a patriot … I’m not, but if you say you are, I can go with that … if you have a problem with murder or a problem with “terrorists” (just another epithet if you ask me) then leave the symbols and character traits out of the picture. You say that your caricatures of “terrorists” are not meant to reflect all Muslims but *every* caricature I have seen is packed with insidious little characteristics that implicate all the wrong people. It may be as subtle as (completely inaccurate) head-coverings or as overt as a tightly held Quran, but in all cases, grotesque noses, uni-brows, and/or brown skin, draw a jagged line between what a terrorist “looks like” and the actual perpetrators. You are attempting to illustrate your point when, in fact, it works in the reverse as well: your point illustrates your bigotry. As long as we’re dismantling generalizations, let’s consider how many of the (alleged and rarely convicted) terrorists are commonly fair-skinned, shaved, and narrow-featured. Political artists aren’t portraying an amalgamation of convicted persons so much as they are portraying a synthesis of prejudiced viewpoints. It’s like this: “Free Speech/White Power” artists claim to implicate the terrorists when (by proxy of “harmless drawings”) Muslims AT LARGE become the target … and Arabic peoples, … and Sikhs, Turks, Indians, Latin@s, Blacks, and any other people of color whom meet our ill-defined criteria for “threat” … and when an American sociopath retaliates (be it Neo-nazi, Klansman, or Commanders-in-Chief) we fail to see how this suffering is extended to the families and communities of said (and wrongly-accused) victims. We don’t understand the brutal reach of our judgments.If it sounds like I’m squandering your Free Speech … I am. Seriously, shut up and seek out the voices and opinions of people who seem to be so unlike yourself. Seriously and actively LISTEN. What I hear from listening to these cartoonists is quite clearly hate speech. ~ M Ryan Noble
Posted on: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 06:03:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015