Reading The Pictures: The "What" Of What's Wrong With Barack Osama TNY Cover

The contribution Errol Morris made to visual politics earlier this summer, in explaining his Abu Ghraib film, was to emphasize how much the elements of a highly controversial image tend to get missed or "looked past" in the strong emotional and ideological reactions to the overall image.

With this illustration having the capacity to roil the nets for days, I'm sure you've already seen analysis as to why it's so bad.

(Some of that rationale includes: a.) Otherwise topflight, liberal-minded illustrator forgets that parody involves the employment of imagery to convey something opposite its literal meaning, b.)  Otherwise mistake-averse magazine becomes caught in blind spot after big city liberals get bitter and "cling to rhetorical guns" to express feelings of being jilted by overly centrist nominee, and c). Right wing mouthpieces who have so-far avoided turning into complete bottom feeders have just been handed enough cover for at least a week. )

What you're probably not going to see much of elsewhere, on the other hand, is the actual "what" of what's wrong here.  Here's my list:

1. Set in an Oval Office the revolutionaries have cleared of the desk (because revolutionaries don't do desks, so much as lairs), the self congratulations -- especially at this early, pre-convention stage of the campaign -- ascribes a massive sense of entitlement to the Obamas.

2. Minus the eye contact of the actual fist bump in St. Paul (and adding the arched eyebrows), Angela Davis Obama's expression is transformed from "I love you" to "You're SUCH an evil genius, baby ... and no one ever caught on!"

3. Besides Barack's pursed lips -- which have turned into code in the MSM for this arrogant (read: "uppity") black man -- the most damning element in this illustration, by far, is Obama's eye.  The furtiveness lends the perfect Machiavellian effect, and the fact it's directed our way suggests we should really know better what this guy is up to.

4.  Of course, the gun, the ammo clip, the cammo pants and the crossed legs (like crossed fingers) suggest what an angry, war-like creature Michelle is.

5. It's not just that Old Glory is on fire ("thank Allah I can finally toss that damn pin!"), the crumpled flag at floor level is reminiscent of the flag good old Bill Ayers was stepping on.

In my "ObamaPhobia" presentation at Netroots Nation next Saturday, I aim to show how various campaign images in the traditional media echo more extreme right-wing hate imagery -- conveying Obama as a man with a covert, anti-American agenda, or a deliberate and calculated mastermind, or a closet Muslim and Islamic Manchurian candidate. In hitting the trifecta here, many will argue this illustration is simply a satiric representation of the sophomoric attacks being tossed at Obama from far right field.

If that's all there was to it, though, than why do I sense Rove is chortling tonight?

The reason -- besides the fact that the New Yorker demographic is a pretty narrow one -- is that visually-based racial, religious and character-based framing does carry cognitive weight across a spectrum of higher- and lower-level reasoning, and, more than anything, it gains strength and veracity through repetition.

So, forget about "don't think of an elephant."  Try not thinking about the guy's name in the turban-thing without not thinking about his brother's name in the portrait behind him.
---
(Update 2:37pm) : I've been fascinated absorbing the comments here and at the cross-post at BAGnewsNotes.  Reading this again, the one thing I don't think I adequately framed above is why the parody fails.  It's not so much that parody needs to convey something opposite, but it does have to execute some form of emotional or intellectual or editorial transformation on the elements put forth.

Interestingly, a number of readers zeroed in on this, and even offered Mr. Blitt ways this might have been done. Waterrat  says:

Something's missing.

Possibly a group picture on the mantle of Hannity, Coulter, Limbaugh, Beck, Rove, Cheney, and Bush, all snickering with unfettered delight.

Choppedliver writes:

Since the artist meant to skewer not Obama but the media's emerging, misguided portrait of him, it seems the drawing is incomplete. What we see here should be the picture on Obama's TV screen, as he sits in an all-American home with his wife and daughters, eating apple pie.

To give us an appreciation, or a sense of outrage, or even a poke at any truth this picture might contain (especially the rapidly growing, but less openly discussed meme of Obama as Machiavelli, as opposed to Osama II), the illustration has to take us outside or beyond the manifest content here, and then show it to us again through a different window -- be that a different context or a different point of view.

As a more instinctual way of explaining the problem, warincontext points out, making me think about last night's last-minute Remnick HuffPo interview, that satire isn't satire if it has to be labeled as such.

David Remnick On That New Yorker Cover: It's Satire, Meant To Target "Distortions And Misconceptions And Prejudices" About Obama (HuffPost)

(illustration: Barry Blitt.  New Yorker cover.  July 21, 2008)

Comments

[naluca]

I will agree that there is nothing funny about Barack Obama.

[likeicare]

When I first saw the pic, I thought, uh-oh, this is just pouring gasoline on the fire -- it's a visual rep of what goofy right-wingers really think about Barack & Michelle.

They don't need any encouragement, TNY staff -- they need therapy.

[Mojane]

Choppedliver writes:

"Since the artist meant to skewer not Obama but the media's emerging, misguided portrait of him, it seems the drawing is incomplete. What we see here should be the picture on Obama's TV screen, as he sits in an all-American home with his wife and daughters, eating apple pie."

I liked this best of any I've heard or read all the live long day today. It's what my gut said was off, but didn't know how to correct. Thanks Chopped.

And thanks Michael Shaw. Your article expressed what I've wanted to hear... all day.

[jurassicpork]

This is what we're doing. Without even knowing what the cover story of the July 21st edition of the New Yorker will say.

And this is what we're reduced to, because mere words aren't enough because we're too distracted by reality TV and our Blackberries and iPods to actually parse words. Because we can't properly visualize and parse something such as the lies, distortions, fabrications and innuendos regarding Senator and Mrs. Obama unless it's rubbed in our faces in the form of cartoons and caricatures.

[rosal]

The New Yorker needed a small story underneth the cartoon. This would be an explanation on what they were trying to accomplish. And of course, this would have to be done in very simple words , for all the simple folk that think that what the cartoon depicts is accurate.

[johnwinner]

One of the most damning aspects of this "joke" wich has not been discussed yet is that it is racist - the New Yorker would not do this to a white politican with similar attacks from the right.

[noradunn]

Michael's Shaw's piece is brilliant. What I saw as a lame attempt at satire really reveals this liberal minded illustrators fears and resentments. That's what we should be discussing. Can America really elect a black man without accusing him of being calculating, as if the Kennedy's and the Clintons weren't? He's preachy, he's an elitist, he's too white, too radical, too centrist, and now Maureen Dowd takes him to task because he doesn't like ice cream and sugary gum. Maybe Barack should open a rib shack in Chicago, then we could lambast his barbecue sauce.

[klevenstein]

I've enjoyed NYer magazine covers for 50 years (since before I could read). I've seen some better than others, but this is definitely way below the level to which I have been accustomed.

Why? Because it's extremely UGLY. This is political filth at its ugliest.

I'm very disappointed, and I will definitely boycott the magazine. Whomever you support politically, this sinks to a disgusting level of ugliness. I'm not prone to outrage at things political, but really. This stinks so horribly, I don't see how it could pass anyone's smell test, and certainly not the editors.

[Clarabell]

Good for you. I didn't renew Newsweek because of Karl Rose, and The Nation because of it's Hate Hillary stance. I don't take NYer magazine, but know those who do and hopefully they will follow your example.

[amoment]

Finally, a True American!

[Mojane]

Why not just write to the New Yorker and voice your displeasure. You've enjoyed the magazine for 50 years (or at least its covers) and for one misstep, albeit a big one. Why forfeit the pleasure of its company, the totality of it, for the rest of your days?

[iseebs]

Michael
You missed the picture of Osama bin Laden above the fireplace.

[dfletcher]

What, so there's nothing wrong with the Osama bin Laden picture hanging over the fire?

Just nitpicking, otherwise great article. This whole thing is disgusting. I feel ashamed to be a member of the human race right now.

[JJK]

This deconstruction is so over the top that I don't even know where to begin, other than to observe that it misdefines parody at its beginning and that most of the rest is Liberal paranoia at its worst. It's so absurd that I read it a second time to see if the author's intent wasn't to produce a truly clever parody of some of the reactions to the cartoon, but alas, he is serious.

The cartoon is crude, unfair and insensitive, but it's not the work of the Antichrist or, even worse, Karl Rove. It's a lousy attempt at political "humor" that has gotten far more attention than it deserves. If Karl Rove is indeed "chortling" tonight, it's because so many have gone apoplectic in deriding it, thus calling attention to its most negative possible "message," over and over and over and over and over again.

[iseebs]

This is awful.

This is exactly the type of satyr that the Nazis used to shape a negative picture of the Jews to spread hate by amplifying the preconception of a few.

This is done with the purpose to hurt Obama.

[Fudgefase]

It was a 'let's put into pictures what the right wingers are saying, just in case some folk can't read' cover.
It wasn't even funny, or shocking. Just plain bigoted.

[americaforme]

Lets go beyond satire, beyond what the average guy thinks. (Sometimes an artist) doesn't let his right hand know,what the left is doing. I really thought it was funny, for a lot of reasons. We're all screwed up,in the pain of (mistrust) we're looking like paranoid Blood Hounds, for the littlest mistake...Today I get to laugh at myself, and thats great.

[Drawmark]

The cover is absolutely on point. Satire, caricature, lampoon, all of that is beside the point. Many people still believe or WANT to believe that the Obamas are Muslim, that the fist bump is terrorist code, that everyone on the left prays to Mecca and Osam Bin Laden, that we are all warming ourselves with the amber glow of burning flags. It is all nonsene, it is nothing more than rumor mongering, innuendo, and character assasination. Is it tasteless? I don't think so, it is simply speaking truth to the power of lies. Yes, there are some that will take manufactured offense at the image, who feel that it will do damage to the Obama campaign, but I think the conversation we have about it brings to light the ugly rumor campaign and those that spread it. The artist need not concern himself with what the public may or may not understand, and the items that people wish to see, a title, a caption, the media, Hannity and Co. are not needed. The image retains it's power not by what is shoved in there, but by what is left out. That's what instigates conversation and controversy. I think it is a great image, putting aside all of the supposedly incendiary images that most people will be talking about, the obvious things mentioned already, fist-bumping, flag burning, and weapon toting, the thing that I LOVE letting Michelle Obama's hair grow out. Nothing frightens white America more than an Afro.

[Jules1]

Why even give it credity by discussing it over and over???????????????????