Banality in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
July 15, 2008 by Diva Jood
Two of the greatest philosophers of the 20th Century were born today: Jacques Derrida and Walter Benjamin. Derrida’s work on the Philosophy and Theory of Deconstruction, upends the Western metaphysical tradition.
Deconstruction is not synonymous with “destruction”, however. It is in fact much closer to the original meaning of the word ‘analysis’ itself, which etymologically means “to undo” — a virtual synonym for “to de-construct.” … If anything is destroyed in a deconstructive reading, it is not the text, but the claim to unequivocal domination of one mode of signifying over another. A deconstructive reading is a reading which analyses the specificity of a text’s critical difference from itself.
The Critical Difference (1981), Barbara Johnson
Benjamin was a Marxist, and critic. His long essay, The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, was extremely important to me when I was in art school – as was Derrida in general. Benjamin’s piece was an effort to define a theory of art that would be “useful for the formulation of revolutionary demands in the politics of art”. Benjamin talked about the “aura” of a work of art which, to him, meant traditional association with primitive, feudal, or bourgeois structures of power and its further association with magic and (religious or secular) ritual. In the age of mechanical reproduction (print, film, photography) where there is no actual “original”, the experience of art would be freed from specific place and ritual and made available to the masses. He wrote: “For the first time in world history, mechanical reproduction emancipates the work of art from its parasitical dependence on ritual.”
Ah, but we live in the age of “Low Information Voters.” We live in an age where a philosophy that requires critical thought has been made banal by the age of mechanical reproduction – deconstruction meets mass media. Deconstruction no longer resides in philosophy, but “launches” fashion products, bathroom items, sports equipment, political attitudes. We have an irony deficit as the world becomes more and more banal.
Why does this matter? The New Yorker Cover that depicts Obama as a Muslim, fist bumping his wife who is clad as an afro-wearing, machine-gun toting militant in the oval office, portrait of Osama Bin Laden on the wall, while the American Flag burns in the fireplace, is why it matters. The New Yorker said the cover was illustrating an article called “The Politics of Fear”, a satirical look at the scare tactics being used to derail Obama’s campaign.
“The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall? All of them echo one attack or another. Satire is part of what we do, and it is meant to bring things out into the open, to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that’s the spirit of this cover,” a New Yorker spokesman said in a written statement.
I get it, I really understand what they think they’ve done and what they intended. But if you deconstruct the contradictions, you find that it did not work. The majority of people will not read the article, and will focus on the image. Mechanically reproduced images are fast, and say a lot. And the cover treads on very thin ice. It is offensive. It plays into the politics of fear. But it is charicature and it is satire and it is getting people talking.
More important: it was not censured.
I don’t care for the cover at all. In my opinion, it fails in its intent because so few people actually will go to the deeper meaning. Each of the “symbols” present in the drawing refer to various attacks by the far right against Obama, and the cover’s intent is a commentary on that type of politics of fear. But it plays too close to the actual fear – perhaps by not being absurd enough, perhaps because we’ve lived in a climate of fear for too many years now, perhaps because as a nation we have lost our soul. We certainly have lost our ability to think, to exercise critical thought and discourse.
But I would not cancel my subscription to the New Yorker. Nor would I demand they remove the cover nor would I demand an apology. I’ve thought this through, and I am now at a point where I applaud them for their big brass ones for risking so much ire. Yes, it is offensive. Maybe I am glad that somebody somewhere has decided to not be politically correct. Maybe we need to be offended more often. What do you think?
Sphere: Related ContentRelated posts:
- Obama’s Surgeon General..fantastic pick! She rebuilt her clinic at least three times..after hurricanes and...
- More often than not… Happy belated birthday to the United States Marine Corps! Cough....
- human nature i have been reading a bit about the early history...
- happy birthday dusterella!!! thought i’d give a shout out to my favorite blogmistress...
The accompanying article was very good. I actually don’t have a problem with the cover as satire..but sadly some will see it as truth.
I appreciate good satire, and I always will. But that said..I will watch to see if the New Yorker does the same type of thing on McCain..I would hope that they would.
Dustys last blog post..Kucinich Impeachment article to be read on the floor of the House today.
Ah, but Dusty, McCain is his own satire without realizing it. He’s getting himself on, these days.
Seriously, most people will not read the article in the New Yorker – and that is why the cover falls short of its intended goal. Perhaps if it had not been the cover, and simply an illustration to the article, it would have worked better. As a cover, it becomes a stand-alone piece and actually becomes what it attempts to satirize.
Diva Joods last blog post..Banality in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
i think that they give people too much credit- if indeed satire was their intent. most of what i hear on the right wing noise circuit- they don’t get satire. i was talking with my mother about this and i basically said this was irresponsible because so very many people in this country don’t even know what satire is- and won’t bother to look it up out of embarrassment or laziness or both. most will look at the cover and not bother to pick up the magazine because it’s pricey or elitist or from new york- but be certain that they will hear about it from the limbaughs or the hannitys or any of the msm- and the picture to them- worth a thousand votes.
betmos last blog post..saving the good stuff
Betmo, that’s exactly my point – had this not been the cover, it would not be getting the play or air time. It would have accompanied the article, and people who will actually read this (rather well written) article will get the point. But as a stand-alone piece it fails as satire and becomes completely inflammatory.
Diva Joods last blog post..Banality in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
I have not read the article yet, for some reason, Chino, CA seems to be waaay out in the boondocks to those New York city sophisticates and my hard copy of the magazine is always days late. (And I refuse to log on and read the article online, I want my New Yorker in my fat fingers.)
I am also not worried about any perceived “damage” the cover might have on the Obama election effort. There are always going to be naive, gullible, uninformed people out there, and some of them, remarkably seem to be able to find their way to the polls on election day, but I have confidence that intelligent, rational American voters far outnumber those who believe all of the bogus innuendo and lies about any well known person that are out there.
If noting else, maybe this “episode” is stimulating some discussion that might enlighten a few people.
Big Fellas last blog post..Nice Work Jesse
Why, bless you, Big Fella – I had no idea you folks in Chino got your mail so slowly! I’d lend you mine, but alas, I don’t know how to drive that far.
Seriously, it has provoked some amazing discussion around the internets.
Diva Joods last blog post..No Child by Nilaja Sun
Maybe I am glad that somebody somewhere has decided to not be politically correct. Maybe we need to be offended more often. What do you think?
In the words of Jon Stewart, “It’s a fucking cartoon”!
Your post was wonderful, by the way.
I find the flare up over the toon to be a tad right out in left field, pun intended, yet as you say “in this day and age”… It doesn’t reflect well upon our current political and philosophical climate, not the one wrought by the powers that be, but by, we, the masses, flailing to get an advantage, one-upmanship, tit for tat, yada yada.
We, as a nation, are losing or have lost our critical thinking skills as you say and we have lost our ability to see ourselves as anything but split in half, when, in truth, we are the ones, as a whole, that will suffer for our failure to see.
thepoetrymans last blog post..WAR ON THE ONE-EYED KINGS
Poetryman, this is why I LOVE Jon Stewart. “It’s a fucking cartoon!”
But now I want to refer back to Walter Benjamin. He talked about a work of art (or in this case, cartoon) having an “aura”, meaning traditional association with primitive, feudal, or bourgeois structures of power and its further association with magic and (religious or secular) ritual. According to Benjamin, in the age of mechanical reproduction, art loses its “aura” and becomes accessible. This cartoon turns that theory on its ear as it has developed a distinct aura, specifically int its association with bourgeois structures of power and magic and ritual. The cartoon has taken on a life of its own.
Sadly, this deflects attention from real, more serious issues: assault on civil liberties; health care in America (or lack of); the Iraq war; the climate crisis; food shortages; the banking crisis. We have real, serious problems in America, and we need to focus on them, rather than the cult of personality.
But without critical thinking, we stoop to the lowest common denominator, and that is the cult of personality.
Diva Joods last blog post..I can’t be in Postville, but I can still help.
Poetryman and Diva-
Your wisdom is what needs to be spread among the masses in this country.
Big Fellas last blog post..An Open Letter To Barack Obama: Military & Veterans Want To Hear From You
Ah, Big Fella, you are quite kind.
Diva Joods last blog post..I can’t be in Postville, but I can still help.