Heath Ledger’s Joker was particularly anarchic. He spread chaos for its own sake. His motivation wasn’t money or power or revenge, it was simply…destruction.
It seems intended to give the impression that Obama is psychotically dedicated to socialism much as the Joker is psychotically dedicated to anarchy. Very stupid, but not racist.
I have to admit, it is unfairly difficult for conservatives to mock Obama without being called racists.
As mentioned, any monkey references, as used on Bush, are rightfully out of bounds on Obama.
But if Joker references are called racist, they can’t do anything. I’m pretty sure there were black Jokers with white face paint in one of the Batman cartoons (Batman Beyond?).
The joker reference is not racist.
People who interpret this image as being racist do so because they look at the image on the poster and are reminded of racist images they have seen in the past. I don’t see what’s so confusing about that.
*No, I’m not. Our inability to determine the designer’s intent doesn’t mean that all interpretations of the poster are equal. I’m sorry you’re having such trouble grasping the concept of the intentional fallacy, but I’m getting tired of repeating myself. This is something you can look up on your own if you care to.
*The people who perceive a racist message in this poster have not claimed that they think so because the designer’s intentions are a mystery to them. They interpret the poster as being racist because the image used reminds them of racist images of black people.
*How many times do I have to answer “No” to this question? It is possible to interpret a creative work without drawing any conclusions about the designer’s intent.
*It means that someone has looked at the poster and made a judgment about it based on what they see on the poster and their own knowledge and experience. They may then be falling victim to the affective fallacy, but reasonable people have been known to do that.
*The evidence is that the image on the poster in some ways resembles racist images of black people. That it also (and indeed more strongly) resembles Heath Ledger as the Joker doesn’t change this. In the image Obama looks like the Dark Knight version of the Joker, but he ALSO looks like a reverse version of a blackface minstrel, and he ALSO looks like a zombie, and he ALSO looks like Marilyn Manson. Since the caption of the poster has no apparent relationship to the image, the viewer is left to draw their own conclusions.
If the poster designer wanted to send a clear message then s/he could have done so by choosing some other caption or even by leaving the caption off altogether. As things are, a reasonable person who recognizes that Obama’s face is painted like the Joker may then wonder what the Joker has to do with Socialism and conclude that the image has some alternate or additional meaning. A reasonable person might also look at this image and think “Obama looks like a minstrel there” without inferring anything at all about the creator’s intent. The image does look rather like a minstrel, zombie, Marilyn Manson, etc., regardless of whether or not such an idea ever crossed the artist’s mind.
Where we lack evidence is when it comes to what the designer actually intended by using this particular image of Obama. Whatever s/he meant, it was not clearly expressed. The caption is unhelpful, even contradictory. The designer is anonymous and has offered no public explanation of the poster. Even if we were all to accept that the final word when it comes to interpreting a creative work is the creator’s intent, we have no stated intent here…and that’s apparently how the designer wanted it. You can’t claim that someone else’s interpretation is unreasonable because it contradicts the designer’s intent when we don’t even know what that intent was. No “we’re all islands” argument is necessary here, it’s a simple fact that the designer of this poster has chosen not to explain their intended meaning.
It’s not confusing, it’s unreasonable. There is no reasonable definition of “racist” that would lead to such an interpretation. Don’t believe me? Please quote the relevant definition.
We almost certainly know what the intent behind the picture was: the intent was to conflate Obama and The Joker. I’ve yet to hear any speculation about the artist’s intent besides this one, except for totally absurd ones.
You may use whatever definition of the word you would use to determine that the images seen here are racist, because it is the resemblance to such images that strikes people as racist.
I must say it strikes me as rather odd that you believe a reasonable interpretation of a creative work requires one to first look something up in a dictionary. I doubt you’ll find many people who consult Webster before they form an opinion about a poster they’ve seen.
“Here’s Obama with his face painted like the Joker” isn’t a political message. The motivation behind the creation of the image may have been nothing more than “I wonder what Obama would look like with Joker makeup?”, but that’s not much of a reason to print that same image on a poster that says “socialism” and stick it up around town.
I think part of the reason this image has “gone viral” is that there is no clear reason why Obama should be depicted in this way. There’s a lot of room to draw different conclusions about what the image means. A better-designed poster with a more obvious message might have attracted less attention.
*I suspect the original artist and the poster designer were not the same person, mostly because it looks like a lot more effort went into the picture than the caption. The picture is rather crudely done, but it must have taken some time to produce. I am kind of curious as to the method used – it’s obviously a Photoshopped version of the cover of the October 23, 2006 issue of Time, but in the biggest copy of the poster I’ve been able to find it looks like the background and possibly the makeup may have been hand-painted.
The guy who photoshopped the picture was most likely in his 20s or 30s. He did not know the picture could be seen as racist. I would not be surprised if he was shocked when he found out some people saw it as such. Then maybe he did . I don’t know what his intent was either.
Yes. Hearing that someone would see it as racist is, indeed, shocking.
Sure. Here’s the definition of racist I’ll use for that image: demonstrating hatred or intolerance of another race or other races. That definition speaks to the motive of the artist. Applying this definition–or any other–to the Jobama poster is ludicrous, unreasonable.
And forgive me, but what a dumbshit idea it is that asking you to define how you’re using words equals requiring “one to first look something up in a dictionary” before offering “a reasonable interpretation of a creative work.” Fuck that. I’m asking people to know what the fuck they’re saying. You cannot offer a definition of racist that makes the application of the word to the poster in question a reasonable application. Instead you’re dithering and equivocating. Unless you can do better, have the last word, and consider it done.
One more note: if our hypothetical artist-who’s-not-bright-enough-to-complete-a-satire-successfully-but-is-clever-enough-to-tie-Obama-to-minstrel-imagery-through-images-of-the-Joker is real, then he’d have been much better off using the old Cesar Romero Joker. Note this figure is actually smiling, has lipstick applied in a way that looks like big lips, and is showing lots of pearly whites. Also, the eyes are bulging in a manner that recalls minstrel imagery.
So we’re really talking about an artist-who’s-not-bright-enough-to-complete-a-satire-successfully-but-is-clever-enough-to-tie-Obama-to-minstrel-imagery-through-images-of-the-Joker-but-is-too-dumb-to-use-the-right-version-of-the-Joker.
People aren’t unreasonable just because they interpret a poster without a coherent message in a different way than you would.
If someone thinks the poster of Obama looks like a minstrel performer, then they are likely to think it is racist in the same sense that an image of a minstrel performer would be racist. This requires no equivocation on the meaning of the word “racist”. If you don’t think an image of a black man painted like a minstrel is racist then that’s your business, but an awful lot of people would disagree with you.
I truly regret that I cannot force comprehension into your brain, but I’ve spent quite a lot of time here trying to explain how someone else might come to hold an opinion that I don’t even hold. You’ve been pretty obnoxious about insisting that I walk you through this, so I’m pleased to hear that you’re finally willing to give up demanding further explanation from me for what is, again, an opinion that isn’t even mine.
Just to wrap up the discussion, the person originally responsible for the poster is not even a Republican, unless Kucinich switched parties when I wasn’t looking.
Regards,
Shodan
According to the article, the person responsible for the poster remains unknown. The person responsible for the image, 20 year old college student Firas Alkhateeb, has come forward, and it turns out things happened just as I suspected – he created the image just for fun, posted it on Flickr, and months later someone else copied the image and made a poster from it.
The LA Times has more details, as well as a copy of Alkhateeb’s Joker image. It’s better looking than what wound up on the poster – some quality was apparently lost when the image was duplicated, and whoever made the poster rather sloppily painted over the “TIME” heading and the background of the picture. The poster designer also added the “socialism” caption. Alkhateeb is quoted in the LA Times interview as saying he doesn’t think the “socialism” label makes any sense.
Nobody thinks the poster actually looks like a minstrel. Obama is not in blackface.
Some people think he looks like a “reverse minstrel.” Or perhaps face paint in general always makes them think of minstrels. If it had been green face paint… an “alien minstrel”?
That doesn’t make it reasonable to believe the poster is racist. A belief may be genuine but unreasonable.
So, if I interpret it to say that Obama is a gender-bending cross-dresser, because he is shown with lipstick, that too would be reasonable?
Oh, the irony.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong. The opinion I’ve asked you to back up is that opinion X is reasonable, not opinion X itself. But I cannot force comprehension into your brain, not even of what I’ve repeatedly asked you to demonstrate.
Sure, why not? He is wearing lipstick and heavy eye makeup in the image, and there’s a certain resemblance to Marilyn Manson or even Dr. Frank-N-Furter. If you claimed this was the best interpretation of the image, or that it was the only interpretation of the image, or that it was the interpretation that the artist intended then that would be another story, but if you just want to say that you think the image makes Obama look like a Sweet Transvestite then that’s reasonable enough.
Didn’t you just promise me the last word?
*Then why do you keep asking me to defend the position that the image is racist?
*You’ve repeatedly asked me to explain what makes the image racist, and have largely ignored my attempts to explain why someone might interpret it as racist. You’ve also repeatedly demonstrated an inability to distinguish between “this image is racist” and “a reasonable person could interpret this image as being racist”, even saying yourself that you “don’t see much space” between the two. I don’t know why, it doesn’t strike me as a particularly subtle concept. If I thought there were no weaknesses or flaws in the position “This image is racist” then I’d be forced to accept that position myself, and yet I keep telling you that I don’t. But the fact that there are weaknesses in a position doesn’t mean that no reasonable person could hold it.
A reasonable person might look at this image and think something like the following:
- Obama looks like a “paleface” minstrel in this image.
- All minstrel-style images are racist.
…Therefore, this image is racist.
The logic here is sound. Whether the argument is valid depends on whether one agrees with the two premises. I don’t think premise #2 is especially controversial; one might argue that in some cases minstrel-style images are not racist, but if the poster had depicted Obama as looking like this or even this then I don’t think anyone here would be denying that it was racist.
So the question of whether the image is racist or not comes down to how one feels about premise #1. Does the image make Obama look like some kind of minstrel show performer? You may not feel that it does, but the case is not without support. The image does bear some resemblance to minstrel-style images of the past. The exaggerated big red mouth with lipstick extending beyond the actual lips is the most striking similarity, but there is also some history of black entertainers performing in “paleface”. Wikipedia tells me that Dooley Wilson (“Sam” in Casablanca) got his nickname in around 1908 when he was performing the Irish song “Mr. Dooley” in “paleface” makeup. In the blackface montage video here you can also see two brief images of black characters (one looks to be the famous Little Black Sambo) turning white with fright at about :33-:35.
The fact that the Obama poster also and more closely resembles Heath Ledger as The Joker doesn’t change the fact that there is some resemblance to certain racist images of black people. A picture can look like more than one thing. The viewer has to decide which of the possible associations this image might evoke are important and which ones are irrelevant. I think the resemblance to Marilyn Manson is rather striking, but since I have no special interest in Marilyn Manson and can think of no reason why an anti-Obama poster with the caption “socialism” should depict him as Marilyn Manson then I can easily dismiss this idea as irrelevant. But given the history of race relations in this country and the very big deal made about Obama’s racial background during the 2008 election season, I can certainly understand why some people would believe that the idea of Obama as a “paleface” minstrel was very relevant indeed when it came to making sense of this poster.
There, I think I’ve reached my personal limit for how many times I can explain the exact same thing using different words. If this is still too difficult for you to understand then I’m afraid you’ll just have to live with that. You did tell me I could have the last word and consider it done, and I’m going to hold you to that now.
I think we’re working with two different definitions of “reasonable”. I’m fine with the one in the dictionary. I’ll leave you to live with the other one.
- Obama looks like a “paleface” minstrel in this image.
- All minstrel-style images are racist.
…Therefore, this image is racist.
Except since you fail at #1, you never make it to #2.
Let’s just say the Jack Nicholson Joker, or the Heath Ledger Joker, would have killed the Romero Joker, just to do it. The first was a fairly benign characterization, the other two were stone cold killers. The difference between Nicholson and Ledger was, Nicholson wanted to take over the city and Ledger wanted to just destroy it.
Put all three in the same room, and the Romero Joker would shit himself.
It’s still a dumb picture. {Putting on my “wannabe art critic” hat)
It would have been a stronger statement with no words at all. Then the message would be much clearer -
“This guy is evil incarnate and wants to kill us all”
Or something like that.