Posted on 08/08/2009 7:18:24 AM PDT by Daffynition
For over 14 years, I've been professionally involved in the street-art community, hosting events where artists paint live installations, and producing and promoting national art tours. I've personally known the key players behind the Barack Obama "Hope" posters for many years—one being a former employee of mine, another a former colleague. I'm excited for their accomplishment and sense of pride for participating in Obama's historic presidential campaign. When asked by my former employee to be involved with the Hope poster distribution, I declined on philosophical grounds, but fully appreciated and understood their passions.
But that said, it feels to me, as it did during the campaign, that the art community is not meeting its duty of always questioning those in power. And I say duty because the art community, as a counterpart of the press, has been given special rights written into the Bill of Rights, known broadly as freedom of the press, for the explicit purpose of keeping power in check.
Throughout modern history, art typically enters politics on a mass scale in two fashions: first, as a check on power; second, as a tool used by those in power. Freedom of the Press comes into play in both cases, but in very different ways. In the first case, it protects political commentary by artists. This freedom is not a garnish. It is a necessary weapon, enshrined in the Constitution for the purpose of countering contradictions, hypocrisies, and distortions made by politicians and others in power. Yet the art community has responded to the Obama administration's contradictions, hypocrisies, and distortions with near total silence.
Consider the recent flurry of debate over the Obama "Joker" posters that have been appearing in Los Angeles. This image represents the only substantial counterpoint to Obama's current agenda from the art community. What's been the response?
One writer from the LA Weekly declared of the image, "The only thing missing is a noose." Philip Kennicott of The Washington Post stated, "So why the anonymity? Perhaps because the poster is ultimately a racially charged image." Bedlam magazine, the first to comment on the poster back in April, argued, "The Joker white-face imposed on Obama's visage has a sort of malicious, racist, Jim Crow quality to it." Why would any artist who hopes to have (or keep) a career create images that criticize the president when both journalists and art reviewers make such irrational comments? To give some perspective, remember that the "noose" comment came from a publication that once presented a cover image of George W. Bush as a bloodthirsty vampire.
When I first saw the Obama Joker poster on my block in April I tried to read the website featured in the upper right-hand corner, but it was too pixilated to decipher. Is anonymity part of the artist's message? Possibly. However, if anonymity is not a part of the message, can you blame the artist for wanting to remain anonymous given the irrational and racially-charged criticism the poster has received?
I find it hard to believe that the Obama Joker creator is the only serious detractor (assuming that it is a critical commentary) within the art community. And I'm sure the incendiary criticism will keep others from creating similar images. But regardless of political affiliation, the art community must embrace all rational dissenters. Art must not exclusively serve the interests of any presidential administration.
It's time for the art community to return to its historical role in political affairs, which means speaking to power, not on behalf of it. Which leads me to the second case where art enters politics on a mass scale. The power of art, in combination with the suppression of free speech or a free press, has been used as a tool by authoritarian governments to control their citizens. From Hitler, Stalin, and Mao to Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il, art has been used to deify leaders while preserving the position of the ruling class. Most artists would not want to be referred to as tools of the state, but in the case of Obama's administration, that's exactly what they've been so far.
I am at the library, if you posted the Obama joker poster it is blocked here in LaPlata Md.
Sticks and stones!
-----
Interesting. It is hosted on my “Fotki” account.... not hotlinked.
NOTE- Artistic freedom cmes under freedom of speech, not press.
Must be something in the name of the file they look for, because I’m getting other pics on other threads but not your!
No it still isn’t coming up and the picture of him as aknight is on my screen.
Try it again .... thanks for experimenting. ;D
The picture shows up in a google search however, so is anyone else not seeing your picture?
Thanks .... must be they are blocking “Fotki” then .... hope you don’t have men in black suits standing over your shoulder now!
Absolutely true. Any examination of German history in the 1920s and '30s will reveal the role of art, music, and drama in the rise of the Nazis. Goebbels and Hitler were former or failed artists themselves, their talents used for political ends.
From Wikipedia:
"Goebbels earned a Ph.D. from Heidelberg University in 1921, writing his doctoral thesis on 18th-century romantic drama...He also wrote novels and plays, but they were refused by publishers.
"Hitler was rejected twice by the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna (1907–1908), citing "unfitness for painting", and was told his abilities lay instead in the field of architecture."
More reading about the role of the arts as tools for propaganda can be found in Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics by Frederic Spotts.
No cat image, so they are blocking the site you use.
Hey! This guy gets it.
Thanks for checking. First time that this has happened that I am aware of. Have a great weekend!
i like the line, “why so Socialist?”
fits with the movie...
racist?
no.
chilling.
t
Hitler ~ "No state lasts longer than the documents of its culture."
When you think of the online “art” produced during the Bush years, I would say that the Obama Joker is pretty mild in comparison.
Remember the flap over the New Yorkers cover? The Obamaistas were berserk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.