Freedom of speech is a privilege that we, as Americans, should hold in high regard. Despite the fact that we all have differing opinions on a variety of topics, the right to express our opinions (even the offensive ones), however we wish, is one of the founding principles of our nation. It is one of the things that makes our country great. I find it bothering though when people want to express offensive viewpoints and not take credit for those views, or mask those viewpoints as those of others. It is cowardly to express a view but refuse to take responsibility for and stand by that view. There are a few particular instances of such cowardice that relate to Senator Barack Obama and his presidential candidacy.
The first instance happened back in the first week of June when a controversial artist, Yazmany Arboleda, opened two new exhibits in New York city entitled "The Assassination of Barack Obama" and "The Assassination of Hillary Clinton." Personally, I think these are rather stupid titles for exhibits about presidential candidates who, at the time, were both in a heated and historic battle for the Democratic Party nomination, and who both have aroused their fair shares of hatred simply by virtue of their genetics. It should come as no surprise that within thirty minutes of the opening of the exhibits the Secret Service had detained Arboleda for questioning. The exhibits themselves are very offensive, to say the least. I have no problem with Arboleda creating such offensive art work, or giving his work the titles that he did, as silly as I think it was. He has the right to do so. What I do have a problem with is his explanation for the exhibit. Arboleda claims that the exhibits were meant to display the "character assassination" of the two candidates. He goes on to defend the exhibit saying that his work "is about words and how the media has torn them (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) apart." Arboleda's explanation is either a clever way of alleviating some of the backlash he's received or a genuine reflection of his interpretation of the way the media has portrayed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I initially struggled with trying to understand Arboleda's motives, but after taking a closer look as the exhibits and all of the hoopla surrounding them, I think the "character assassination" argument was a way to get himself out of hot water. Coming from someone who has followed the Democratic and Republican races extensively, what stood out to me most about Arboleda's exhibits is that some of the offensive things thay he displays were never the topics of serious discussion by national media outlets (nor local media, I would suspect). If Arboleda's exhibits were truly about "character assassination," don't you think it would have been a bit more clear that those were his intentions? Don't you think the reasons behind the exhibit have been more explicit, instead of surfacing only after questioning from federal authorities and the downpouring of outrage by New York citizens? Arboleda clearly conjured up an explanation because of the negative attention his exhibits received. If he is bold enough to create such controversial and offensive exhibits, he should be bold enough to stand by them amid the negative attention and outrage, instead of passing the blame on to the media and the American people.
The second and more recent instance, which happened just this week, is still a part of cable new's daily cycle and, frankly, is more disturbing than the first. You've probably heard something about the most recent cover of The New Yorker (see above). The issue, entitled "The Politics of Fear" depicts Barack Obama dressed in traditional Muslim garb, fist-bumping his wife Michelle who is dressed as a Black militant, with an assault rifle slung over her back. In the background of the Oval Office there is a picture of Osama Bin-Laden hanging over the mantel, and an American flag burning in the fireplace. Wow. This surprises me moreso than Yazmany Arboleda's stunt because The New Yorker is actually a widely read and respected publication. The explanations that The New Yorker offered sounded much like the one that Arbodela offered, namely that the magazine cover "combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are." Another statement, issued to the Obama campaign states: "...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." Bill Burton, an Obama campaign spokesman issued a statement calling the image "tasteless and offensive." I agree. Furthermore, I think it represents bad journalism. I struggled a bit trying to gauge whether the statement offered by The New Yorker was simply an explanation of genuine motives, or, like Arboleda's statement, a way alleviating the unexpected backlash coming from all sides. My hunch is that it's the latter moreso than the former. Although The New Yorker rightly points out that satire is a part of what they do, it's not very often that the magazine produces content that is this offensive. The only other time The New Yorker generated this much controvery was in 1996 when the magazine published a cover depicting two men sailors kissing, meant to parody Alfred Eisenstaedt's "Times Square Kiss" photograph and highlight issues surrounding gays in the military. The New Yorker, which has been satirizing for over 75 years, knows how to get its point across. I don't think it's a mere accident that The New Yorker published such a controversial image without knowing how offensive it really is, and I don't think their intentions were all genuine. A more plausible explanation, in my humble opinion, is that The New Yorker saw an opportunity, much like Arboleda did, to be very extreme offensive, generate much attention (and consequently revenue), and have a nice sounding, canned explanation ready to be released.
There is no doubt that there have been some outrageous claims and attacks on Barack Obama's (and Hillary Clinton's) character, but I find it hard to believe that Arboleda and The New Yorker were so moved by the way the candidate(s) have been treated by the media and the American people that they just had to speak out and put the "character assassination" on display. Rather, I believe both knew that they could paint almost any picture they wanted, no matter how offensive, and rely on the fact that somewhere out there, some media outlet or some person has uttered something that relates to that painted picture, in other words, this is one of the rare instances where a decent sounding excuse is inherently built in. Again, I don't have a problem with Arboleda or The New Yorker displaying offensive content, although I do believe both examples are tasteless, to say the least. What I do have a problem with is Arboleda and The New Yorker using the media and the American people as a scapegoat for creating such offensive content. When people start to become outraged and the realization comes that your content is a bit too offensive, don't insult my intelligence by issuing a statement that uses others as the reason you created such content. If that were true it would have been more obvious from the beginning, especially in the case of The New Yorker.
The first instance happened back in the first week of June when a controversial artist, Yazmany Arboleda, opened two new exhibits in New York city entitled "The Assassination of Barack Obama" and "The Assassination of Hillary Clinton." Personally, I think these are rather stupid titles for exhibits about presidential candidates who, at the time, were both in a heated and historic battle for the Democratic Party nomination, and who both have aroused their fair shares of hatred simply by virtue of their genetics. It should come as no surprise that within thirty minutes of the opening of the exhibits the Secret Service had detained Arboleda for questioning. The exhibits themselves are very offensive, to say the least. I have no problem with Arboleda creating such offensive art work, or giving his work the titles that he did, as silly as I think it was. He has the right to do so. What I do have a problem with is his explanation for the exhibit. Arboleda claims that the exhibits were meant to display the "character assassination" of the two candidates. He goes on to defend the exhibit saying that his work "is about words and how the media has torn them (Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton) apart." Arboleda's explanation is either a clever way of alleviating some of the backlash he's received or a genuine reflection of his interpretation of the way the media has portrayed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I initially struggled with trying to understand Arboleda's motives, but after taking a closer look as the exhibits and all of the hoopla surrounding them, I think the "character assassination" argument was a way to get himself out of hot water. Coming from someone who has followed the Democratic and Republican races extensively, what stood out to me most about Arboleda's exhibits is that some of the offensive things thay he displays were never the topics of serious discussion by national media outlets (nor local media, I would suspect). If Arboleda's exhibits were truly about "character assassination," don't you think it would have been a bit more clear that those were his intentions? Don't you think the reasons behind the exhibit have been more explicit, instead of surfacing only after questioning from federal authorities and the downpouring of outrage by New York citizens? Arboleda clearly conjured up an explanation because of the negative attention his exhibits received. If he is bold enough to create such controversial and offensive exhibits, he should be bold enough to stand by them amid the negative attention and outrage, instead of passing the blame on to the media and the American people.
The second and more recent instance, which happened just this week, is still a part of cable new's daily cycle and, frankly, is more disturbing than the first. You've probably heard something about the most recent cover of The New Yorker (see above). The issue, entitled "The Politics of Fear" depicts Barack Obama dressed in traditional Muslim garb, fist-bumping his wife Michelle who is dressed as a Black militant, with an assault rifle slung over her back. In the background of the Oval Office there is a picture of Osama Bin-Laden hanging over the mantel, and an American flag burning in the fireplace. Wow. This surprises me moreso than Yazmany Arboleda's stunt because The New Yorker is actually a widely read and respected publication. The explanations that The New Yorker offered sounded much like the one that Arbodela offered, namely that the magazine cover "combines a number of fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are." Another statement, issued to the Obama campaign states: "...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." Bill Burton, an Obama campaign spokesman issued a statement calling the image "tasteless and offensive." I agree. Furthermore, I think it represents bad journalism. I struggled a bit trying to gauge whether the statement offered by The New Yorker was simply an explanation of genuine motives, or, like Arboleda's statement, a way alleviating the unexpected backlash coming from all sides. My hunch is that it's the latter moreso than the former. Although The New Yorker rightly points out that satire is a part of what they do, it's not very often that the magazine produces content that is this offensive. The only other time The New Yorker generated this much controvery was in 1996 when the magazine published a cover depicting two men sailors kissing, meant to parody Alfred Eisenstaedt's "Times Square Kiss" photograph and highlight issues surrounding gays in the military. The New Yorker, which has been satirizing for over 75 years, knows how to get its point across. I don't think it's a mere accident that The New Yorker published such a controversial image without knowing how offensive it really is, and I don't think their intentions were all genuine. A more plausible explanation, in my humble opinion, is that The New Yorker saw an opportunity, much like Arboleda did, to be very extreme offensive, generate much attention (and consequently revenue), and have a nice sounding, canned explanation ready to be released.
There is no doubt that there have been some outrageous claims and attacks on Barack Obama's (and Hillary Clinton's) character, but I find it hard to believe that Arboleda and The New Yorker were so moved by the way the candidate(s) have been treated by the media and the American people that they just had to speak out and put the "character assassination" on display. Rather, I believe both knew that they could paint almost any picture they wanted, no matter how offensive, and rely on the fact that somewhere out there, some media outlet or some person has uttered something that relates to that painted picture, in other words, this is one of the rare instances where a decent sounding excuse is inherently built in. Again, I don't have a problem with Arboleda or The New Yorker displaying offensive content, although I do believe both examples are tasteless, to say the least. What I do have a problem with is Arboleda and The New Yorker using the media and the American people as a scapegoat for creating such offensive content. When people start to become outraged and the realization comes that your content is a bit too offensive, don't insult my intelligence by issuing a statement that uses others as the reason you created such content. If that were true it would have been more obvious from the beginning, especially in the case of The New Yorker.
Offend to your heart's desire, but don't try to hide the fact that your intention is to offend. The eloquently worded statements, conveniently released after you've generated a boatload of money and over a million internet hits, are just a way of masking bigotry.
1 comment:
Their statements reflect how the game is played. The American people feed off of the hate and bigotry of its own people and examining the amount of attention both these pieces received, these artists knew this. People hate to be offended directly therefore the responses released had to justify why what your viewing directly is not what the artist "intended" for you to see. I would not have expected any other type of response as it is required to protect one from negative public scrutiny. You’re just fortunate enough to see the truth behind the mask. Unfortunately, most of the American people are not...
Post a Comment