Here is something I wrote for the blog of the Amsterdam-based VJ (Video-Journalism) Movement.
http://blog.vjmovement.com/?p=94
* * *
When I draw editorial cartoons, I want them to do one or both of two things: expose the system and encourage resistance. In this era, when life on this planet is being systematically killed and converted into profit, and human beings are crushed by exploitation and oppression, to make a principle of creating apolitical art is worse than useless. In fact, in a time of acute crisis, there is no such thing as apolitical art. Whatever the intention of the artist, art that does not promote resistance (overtly or tacitly), in effect supports the status quo.
Purely decorative art does have its appropriate place and time: a time of peace, harmony and sustainability. Unfortunately, we don’t live in such a time. Today, the world cries out for a culture of resistance, art that contributes to building a movement to fight back. We are in a state of emergency, and conditions demand that artists (and everyone else, for that matter) be engaged in the process of putting an end to this system and transforming society.
Editorial cartoons are by nature critical. When asked why his work is always negative, one cartoonist points out that “a positive cartoon is called a greeting card.” I would add that a neutral cartoon is actually an illustration. The function of editorial cartoons is to attack and subvert those in power and their official pronouncements (which are, inevitably in class society, lies).
Editorial cartoons may not often be radical, and are rarely revolutionary, but if they are good, they are always oppositional. This is true even in parts of the world where open opposition is a death sentence. Under such conditions, a cartoonist’s opposition may be subtle or concealed, but it is always there. Readers perceive this. It is the reason readers love them.
Editorial cartoons reveal truths about current events and politics while making the reader laugh, usually in bitter recognition. The form – an image in a box, with or without a bit of text – forces the message to be pared down to its minimal essence. When done well, a cartoon reaches the reader’s consciousness with instant clarification, turning a previously complex or obscured concept into something now obvious.
I have often used the phrase “resistance through ridicule.” When we use humor to expose absurdity and hypocrisy, and inspire our readers to laugh at those in power, then we help our readers to be less afraid. When our respect for the powerful switches to contempt, we can better imagine them toppling from their lofty positions. We can imagine toppling them ourselves.
Amen! keep your pencil sharp like Thomas Nast
Nicely written! I agree with the concept of an artist’s responsibility, but I’m curious what you think about the idea that humor in the face of true atrocities can help people to NOT act. I’m thinking here of things like The Daily Show, which let the audience feel superior, and laugh cynically, and sit on their couches. I sometimes feel that there’s a kind of sardonic and smirking attitude encouraged by winking parody, which allows people to assume the worst and not feel an onus to cry out and attack what they see wrong in the world. I don’t have a definite answer to this, but I’d be interested to hear what you have to say.
Dear Ecpyrosis,
I have often wondered the same thing. I think this does happen sometimes, but I don’t think it necessarily always does. It depends on what the actual point of the humor is. I thought about this in relation to the movie “Office Space,” which many people love and relate to because of how the characters show contempt for their awful jobs. But at the end, there’s no solution to living in the system where we have to work for others — the main character just changes jobs and becomes happy. It doesn’t ring true, and it doesn’t present a solution or way out of the system. As it is, the humor might make have the effect of making people actually more frustrated even though it had a rebellious aspect. But I don’t think it had to be that way.
At other times, personally I have been effected by humor in better ways, when it helps me feel less intimidated by those in power. Contempt is much more conducive to action than fear. So humor that uses sarcasm to foster contempt can be positive, but it needs to be backed up with politics that really demand change. The Daily Show doesn’t do that, as we can see by Stewart’s recent call for a march that demands, basically, moderation from all sides.
Stephanie
Stephanie, thanks for the thoughtful response. Perhaps it has more to do with where someone is emotionally? If you are stuck fearing the ecocidal maniacs in power and feeling like they’re too well-organized in their violence for you to possibly do anything against them, then ridiculing them can be the most effective message you can find (this might explain why totalitarian dictators who rule through naked force usually outlaw making fun of them.)
On the other hand if you’re stuck because you feel complacent — you benefit from the system as it is so are motivated to feel like it’s all going to die anyway so you may as well enjoy yourself on the way down — you might be perfectly willing to make fun of those in power, and they have no need to fear you doing it, but the powerfully affecting message for you might be seeing a possible road to making change, or something that makes you angry by offending the last dying ember of belief that the world is just, or some other message.
I think this has a lot to do with why most well-intentioned activists, even on the very far left, are so ineffective at motivating people to do something. They’re still trying to deliver messages that were powerful for most people in the ’60s, when the population by and large was in an emotional state that is very rare today: true and earnest belief that those in power politically and economically had the best interests of others at heart. If that’s true then pointing out that injustice happens can be a profoundly disturbing and motivating experience, but for most of us now it’s lost any kick of surprise. (Michael Albert discusses this in his memoir, which is worth reading even if you don’t completely ascribe to his politics.)
Anyway, reaching people and moving them from passively agreeing with you to actively making change happen is the oldest problem there is from artists with integrity, so thanks for bringing it up. Also I don’t mind saying that my view of the primacy of the environment as the issue we all need to deal with (since otherwise we’ll all be too…well, dead, to worry about creating anarchist communities) came about from reading Jensen, whom I was introduced to by reading your graphic novel after picking it up at a talk you and Ted Rall gave at a bookstore in NY. I went to see Rall and hadn’t heard of your comic before that, so it at least works sometimes, and I’ve often used bits of your book in classes I’ve taught since as way to wake people up and get some actual critical thinking going about environmental issues.
Also, for a view of the power of comedy to attack power, this commentary by Michael Palin supports your earlier point: http://outoutdamnthought.blogspot.com/2009/07/brilliant-form-of-subversion.html
Dear Ecpyrosis,
Thanks for the link — it’s good.
What you say makes sense — humor can dispel fear, but it takes more to motivate the complacent. I agree. We need to come at this from every angle. It’s very very hard to know what will motivate a person — usually it’s many things, over time. And as groups it’s even harder. The spark could be anything, and is impossible to predict. We definitely do need to get beyond just a litany of injustices and crimes.
I’m so glad to hear about how the talk I did with Ted was the bridge for you to read Derrick’s work! That’s great. Yeah, connections happen in all kinds of ways. I’m thrilled that you use parts of “As the World Burns” in your classes. Thanks for telling me about that!
Best,
Stephanie