3
Satire, Parody and Irony: Its uses, misuses
and the appropriations taken in the fertile fields of political activism and
the arts.
First
off, picture this…. Donald
Rumsfeld moseys up to the podium for his daily press briefing on the day’s
events in the war with
This
scenario did not happen, of course (yet…), however the way in which I
portrayed it in a decidedly slanted tone, not to mention the total overuse of
“Quotation Marks,” further illustrates that I, as a politically
active artist, have also used these three vehicles: Satire, Parody and Irony
(from here on out, referred to as S,P&I) to create my own political
agenda. By specifying Donald
Rumsfeld - a highly politicized controversial figure in his own right, (who
also has the unfortunate nickname “Chicken Little” within the
Pentagon that he heads) – then referencing the children’s story in
the retelling of current events such as the bombing of
This
paper is about the uses of S,P&I in the arts. More specifically, in the use of
S,P&I in political activism in the visual arts. I will argue that S,P&I can be a
much more effective vehicle for conveying political meaning, but not at the
expense of content. I feel that
S,P&I can be the most effective vehicle to connect with the audience as
there are really no limitations to what the fine arts can achieve and the
audience that it addresses.
However, from time to time as the opportunity arises, I will make use of
other examples from other mediums to help illustrate a point in the
making.
Satire,
Parody and Irony in the Visual Arts.
When
addressing S,P&I there are several things one must take into account before execution of the work
itself. The biggest stumbling
block, I feel, is making use of the simulacrum and the referent (these concepts
will be addressed later in this paper in greater detail); of the persona or
event the artist intends to show in a decidedly slanted light. This is important because rarely does
the audience, as a whole, have an intimate association with the individual
subject matter – or the referent - or in the case of an event (such as
the bombing of
In
addition to addressing the simulacrum within the confines of S,P&I, it is
equally important to define the terms (Satire, Parody & Irony) themselves
– individually. This is done
with the intention of clarification of the terms themselves, because I will
argue they rarely seem to work alone.
Another question one might ask (and will be done in this paper) is: Can the three work independently or do
they always have to work in conjunction with one another to be effective?
Finally,
throughout the paper, I’d like to discuss and use to illustrate, two
artists who make use of S,P&I, I believe very effectively, but use them
very differently for the same ends.
These two artists are Hans Haacke and Paul McCarthy. Since they employ the devices S,P&I,
but to varying degrees of intensity, I ask the question then: Is it possible to really separate the
artist himself from the actual work itself? More specifically, can the views being
portrayed in a particular artwork be separate and independent from the artists
views? I liken this to an actor
playing a role in a staged production.
If this can happen, is it then an effective use of S,P&I in light of
the fact that the artwork then has no base support (i.e. someone to back it
up)? If its meaning cannot be
separated from the artist himself, how can the artist use this association to
their advantage and to what end?
Simulacrum. What is it? Where to store it? And at what temperature?
In determining our generation by models
of the real without origin or reality – or hyperreal – simulacrum
is “the map that proceeds (before) the territory.[2]” This is the Procession of Simulacra.
All real models try to coincide with their simulation models. Here’s how: 1) First you create the model, and 2)
then the model transforms the real into the model. 3) Then representational imagery
disappears with the simulation. Baudrilliard argues that “the
real” is actually produced from miniaturized units, matrices and memory
banks. With all these playing together
in tandem, the simulacrum can be reproduced at unlimited intervals. At this point, the simulacrum no longer
needs to be rational since it is not measured up against an ideal.
The
age of simulacrum begins with the liquidation of ALL referential. Here then I feel it is important to
introduce the concept of the “referent.” The referent is the actual event, object, persona, etc, et. al. , which the simulacrum
originally used as its source model.
From the point of the referent, it then becomes no longer a question of
parody, but more of substituting signs of the real, (or referent) for the real
itself; ultimately, it would appear preferring
the simulacrum to the real.
What,
for example, becomes of an event or persona when it reveals itself in icons, or
when it multiplies itself in simulacra?
By creating icons, one raises the question that it is possible there has
never been any real, and that only the simulacrum exists. Are people able to accept that the very
images themselves conceal nothing at all? That possibly behind these images of
simulacrum, hides the gray eminence of politics. Western faith has engaged in this wager
of representation: This being that the sign could exchange for meaning (or
“the real”).
Therefore, if it can be argued somewhat effectively, that the sign can
be exchanged for the actual meaning.
That the sign could be referred to as the death sentence of every
reference attempting to describe or explain the imminence of “the
real.”
Simulacrum
starts from a utopia or an idealized state of affairs, places or events. Representation tries to absorb
simulation (parody, satire, irony and the like) by interpreting it as a false
representation. Simulation envelops
the whole edifice of representation as itself a simulacrum.
I’d
like now to introduce the work of Hans Haacke who makes interesting use of this
concept in his artwork:
Therefore,
Hans Haacke’s Isolation Box becomes
a very accusing object indeed. It
levels its accusations in four ways: 1) At the U.S. Army for violating the
Geneva Convention on Human Rights, 2) the complacent silence of public opinion,
3) the aloofness of minimalists sculpture and, finally, 4) at the discerning
critic. Here then Haacke was
questioning the simulacrum of high-minded minimalist sculpture (based on the
contextual showing of the work itself).
For Haacke was not simply “recycling minimalism,” he was
chiding it’s usefulness. The
argument being, that if minimalism lacked a “contemporary use” then
what other use could it offer? (possibly, to house prisoners?)
We
go about this two ways. First, the
Dictionary definition:
How
then, does the use of satire in an artwork lend to its effectiveness as a tool
for political activism? Equally
important, how does one use satire in a politically charged artwork without
having it fall into sarcasm? Is
this possible, or is this response by the viewer unavoidable?
Satire
requires two conditions: 1) A
subject and 2) a Satirist. Satire
is a strict art form. However, it
is not only anger, involvement and wit; but also the manipulations of them.
Satire
exerts a perennial fascination of the forbidden. The purpose that compels a satirist
neutralizes his intention to correct and reform. This is because the nature of the satire
is ambivalent, complex and most importantly – elusive.
Miriam
Starkman in her “Introduction” to the book Gulliver’s
Travels by Jonathan Swift makes this comment in defining Satire.
“Satire is bred of dissatisfaction
with vice and folly; the positive purpose however, deeply subsumed, that impels
the satirist’s aggressions is the amelioration of the human creature and
his lot on earth.”[5]
By
stating this quote, I am attempting to explain that one of the most crucial
ways a satire works is with an assumption by the artist within the work
itself. Here, we are addressing
notions of typecasting. Aside from
addressing the biological considerations of the differentiation of persona and
mask, I will go one step further -
later in this paper - with this concept by illustrating the work of the artist
Paul McCarthy, and his use of masks in his performance art. It has been also been argued that
because the satirist- speaker (or the persona) is a fictional device - which
helps the work manifest itself - a point – by – point relationship
does not necessarily exist between life and satirical work. In light of continued research of
satirical artworks and some of the scandals that have ensued because of them; -
especially in the work of Hans Haacke - it can be argued, when the public and
press see Hans Haacke’s satirical work, for example, they are not seeing, or wanting to see, the work as an autonomous object but are in fact
attaching the views being expressed in the satirical artwork, to the artist
behind the work itself.
Thus,
the satiric system, once drawn upon, operates only within its enclosed system;
the alternatives, which are by no means literal, are between passion and
reason. How these satirical
artworks come about is by attracting intellectuals with their own intellect-
for example, the metaphysician with metaphysical speculation, etc. Then he uses their own tools, so to
speak, against them in his satire.
Therefore,
with satire defined and explained, where then does parody have a place in
today’s super-charged political discussions?
Parody. A Weapon of Mass Destruction?
Again, let’s go about this two
ways. First, the Dictionary
definition:
Par•o•dy n
1: a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is
closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule 2: a feeble or ridiculous
imitation.[6]
“a
feeble or ridiculous imitation.”
The last part of this definition, I believe, really helps to show the
historical disdain parody has played in arena of political activism. If one looks at the copyright date for
the dictionary definition, 1976, I feel this is relevant in that this helps
spotlight the fact that parody, only recently (1980’s or their about in
the United States), has gained acceptance as a very credible and powerful art
form. One possibility for this in
the
One
of the problems for parody, has been that in ancient and in modern terms, parody
was sometimes confused because of its uses in the burlesque and travesty -
through pastiche and related forms - to satire, irony and meta-fiction. The reduction of parody to a type of
burlesque, with modern literary critics, has unfortunately been mostly
associated with mockery or ridicule.
This has been done by modern critics who have condemned parody as
trivial because of what they have seen as the “ridiculing” of the
nature of comedy itself. The
critics have denied the importance of its comic effect or structure altogether
in order to save parody from such denigration and to stretch it’s meaning
to cover other fashionable meta-fictional and intertextual forms.
Here
I’ll use the works of Paul McCarthy to further illustrate this
point. Many, if not most, of Paul
McCarthy’s perversions relate back to the role of the penis/phallus as it
relates to the structuring of modern subjectivity and even to the Freudian
model of the castration complex.
For example, McCarthy might remove his own penis, as he did in Experimental Dancer – Rumpus Room
(1975), where he dances in front of an audience, penis tucked between his
thighs, with his face covered by a grotesque clown mask. Or McCarthy may even further objectify
his penis by treating it as merely a lifeless piece of meat, as in Hot Dog (1974). Then he might turn the whole situation
around and simultaneously parody (or even brag about it) as in Monkey Man (1980), Pig Man (1980) and Spaghetti Man (1993). Mostly, it would appear that the issues
for McCarthy always seem to relate back to the penis, which McCarthy has
specifically marked – through various parodies – as a symbol of
masculine authority, but also enacted as a removable object[7]
. McCarthy is then saying that
masculinity in these works is parodied as contingent and at times, completely
hysterical. Thus, enabling the
viewer to see through the transparency and view the concept of masculinity as a
false construction.
Therefore,
simulation of other styles, ones in which the parodist pretends to be sharing
the words and meanings of the object of parody, has long been a technique used
by parodists to elicit the expectations of their audience before presenting another version or view of it (Irony).
Margaret Rose in her book, Parody:
Ancient, Modern and Post-Modern, makes this very effective argument.
“Simulation of an ironic kind may
further be said to be practiced when the parodist uses the text of a target as
a ‘word-mask’ behind which to conceal his or her own
intentions.”[8]
One can see that such “disguises”
may be used by the politically active artist where direct critics might run the
danger of censorship or libel suits.
However, the artist may then also imitate and then distort another text
in order to criticize its reduction to unintended parody by other artists or
writers. This would in effect turn
their own weapons against them.
Could this also be seen as another form of irony?
“It’s
like rain or your wedding day.
It’s like ten thousand spoons when all you need is a knife. It’s like meeting the man of your
dreams and then meeting his beautiful wife….” Ironic
by Alanis Morrissette [9]
Is
this really Ironic or just bad luck?
Lastly, let’s again go about this
two ways. First, the Dictionary
definition:
Iro•ny n 1: the humorous or sardonic use of words
to express the opposite of what one really means (as when words of praise are
given but blame is intended); also:
an ironic utterance 2: incongruity
between the actual result of a sequence of events and the expected result.[10]
The attempt and use of irony has always
been the most overused (and often misunderstood) of the three. I also feel that irony is the glue that
holds parody and satire together:
Irony is the middleman. A
strong understanding of the uses of this tool will inevitably bring either
parody and/or satire into fruition.
Irony, like parody, requires a little faith in the viewer’s
understanding and maybe a little knowledge and/or history of the event being
addressed in the work. Depending on
the event or individual being reconstructed in a work, oftentimes the use of
irony frees the artist up to complete reinterpretation of said work.
Irony, in politically active artwork, is
often done through the grafting of a work onto another work. The work is then turned on a different
subject by a slight change of expression or meaning, thus reinterpreting the
original meaning. This does not
mean the signals of political activists or comic ironies (which indicate its presence
in a work) cannot be learned and the recipient made more aware of an
author’s comic intent. This
inevitably results in the educating of the viewer at the exact moment of conveying different meaning.
What then, is required of the artist
making use of irony to convey a meaning?
Again, to describe the effectiveness of an ironic situation, I must use
it in conjunction with either a parody or satirical situation. In this example, I will use parody.
A typical ironic situation will contain
at least two connected models of communication: The first, is between the artist of the
parodied situation or event, and the second is between the artist and the
reader of the work (who could be assumed to be the reader of the original text,
or situational text, or the parodied text within the parody of which they are
the reader). In other words, the
work to be parodied is decoded by the artist through the use of ironic
situations or references. Then the
work is offered again (or “disguised” through the use of irony) in
a ‘distorted’ or changed form to another decoder (the viewer) as
satire or parody. The
viewer’s expectations for the original parodied work may also be played
upon, evoked and then transformed by the artist as a part of the parodied work. If the reader of the artwork already
“knows” and has previously decoded the parodied target, they will
then be in a better position to compare it with its new form of parody. However, if they are not already aware
of the “target” of the artists’ parodied work, through the
use of ironic situations, they will
come to know it through evocation in the parodied work itself. Therefore, they are better able to
understand the discrepancy between the referent and the parodied work through
the use of irony. This falls in
perfectly with the parodied story of Chicken
Little at the beginning of this paper.
Therefore…… Is it possible to have Parody and Satire
without the use of Irony. Can they
simply and effectively stand___________________________alone?
Ok,
now that I have identified Satire, Parody and Irony with definitions and
examples, one might then ask: Can
any of these three be autonomous?
Is it possible to have any of these stand-alone?
It
seems inevitable, that when one tries to describe the satire, irony or parody
within an artwork, one always has to use S,P&I in the context of another to
get the “Big Picture.”
I
will discuss the work of Hans Haacke’s, Helmsboro Country, constructed in 1990 as an example. This work gained its inspiration from
the public acts of Jesse Helms, a conservative senator from
Haacke’s
Helmsboro Country, 77 x 203 x 121cm
is a sculpture which parodies a box of Marlboro cigarettes, but on a monumental
scale. On both sides of the box,
Haacke had printed two relevant quotations as the warning labels on a pack of
cigarettes. One is from Frank
Saunder[11]
:
“
Few businesses are adventurous and few are prepared to stick the company money
in creative speculative art forms:
But when given the stamp of approval of the NEA such art does have a
chance in the boardroom”[12]
and the other is from George Weissman’s[13]
statement concerning art:
“Let’s
be clear about one thing. Our
fundamental interest in the arts is self-interest. There are immediate and pragmatic
benefits to be derived as business entities.”[14]
These
opinions of two men who have a big investment (they are both employed by
Phillip Morris in different capacities) in the Philip Morris concern and who
seem to be worried only about the financial and practical advantage gained by
Phillip Morris’s “support” of arts. Thus, the monumental scale of the
cigarette box is meant to satirize the
monumental investment the Phillip Morris concern has in the arts as a vehicle
for damage control and public good will.
Ironically, this artwork also
parodies that fact that the Phillip Morris Company is also a large contributor
to senator Jesse Helm’s campaign.
Senator Helms, himself, was also represented in Haacke’s sculpture:
his photograph was printed on the cigarette box with the text “veni,
vidi, vici” (I came, I saw, I conquered). The Marlboro brand name was turned into
“Helmsboro” and twenty cigarettes on the surface of the box were
replaced by twenty bills of rights.
With the latter, Haacke referred ironically
to the event in which the Phillip Morris company distributed “Bill of
Rights” rolls to people, bearing the logos of its three affiliated
companies: General Foods, Kraft and Miller Beer.
Now
lets contrast Hans Haacke’s, Helmsboro
Country with the artwork of Paul McCarthy who makes his case and political
opinions known in a very different
way. For this example, I’d
like to use McCarthy’s work The
Garden 1992.
The Garden is a construction that only
discloses its secret once the viewer is in close proximity to a raised grove of
trees and rocks. Once there, the
viewer is confronted with life-sized, mechanized father and son figures
violently attempting to copulate with a tree and a patch of ground. This work provides both a humorous and
disturbing discovery. These figures
become archetypes for a primal violence that is oddly familiar. Left by themselves in nature, they defile
both the landscapes and a bond between generations. In this piece, McCarthy has not only
ventured into the highly charged terrain of interfamilial sexuality in his
work, he also, in the process, makes the viewer uncomfortably aware of their
own relationship to the figures.
This is a good work to spotlight McCarthy’s sense of humor in portraying
difficult subject matter.
McCarthy’s sense of humor is neither funny, sadistic, sarcastic
nor juvenile…. It’s all
of the above! Works like The Garden, are meant to appeal to
different individuals on different levels.
Thus, leaving the viewer himself to ponder its effectiveness.
Through
illustrating some of the artworks of Hans Haacke and Paul McCarthy; I had hoped
to illustrate my stance that S,P&I cannot
stand alone – effectively.
Like the example and question asked at the beginning of this section
(and in quoting Alanis Morresette in her song Ironic), when one attempts to make irony stand alone, this
act ultimately seems to fail because irony has no base, no foundation,
therefore, it would appear that it simply cannot stand on its own. In these instances, irony needs either
parody or satire to contribute to the referent. The referent, in the case of Alanis
Morresette’s Ironic, is
a young woman’s history of bad
luck. In Hans Haacke’s Helmsboro Country, the referent here is
a conservative southern senator playing to a conservative constituency in an
election year. And finally, in
McCarthy’s The Garden, this is
an instance where the artist is playing off the controversial and often
hypocritical balance between what people often say – vs. – what
people actually do. Now, after
having gone through that tirade, I feel compelled again, to assert that parody
and satire cannot exist without irony
as their linchpin. In all examples
addressed in this paper and in research provided, it would appear that irony is
indeed, again, the middleman here.
Does
Alan Alda always have to be
“Hawkeye?” Is it really possible to separate the Satirist
or Parodist with the work being portrayed?
Why
is it that in American Television Culture, viewers cannot seem to separate the
individual actor from the character he or she plays? Why is it that when discussing a
specific episode of say, Seinfeld,[15]
one must always refer to character names as opposed to the actors real
names. Is Jason Alexander doomed
forever to be George Castansa, or
Julia Louise Dryfess forever to be associated with her character Elane Bennis? It would appear as though these
individuals have all been typecast into the roles that made them famous in the
first place. They have become the
victims of their own success (or their own referent).
“Why
does this have to be the case?”
I’m sure many a famous person has asked at some point? It could be argued that a large segment
of the population does not want them to be real. As Baudrillard has argued in his
definition of the simulacra (the public) prefer
the hyperreal to actually identifying the referent, thus labeling the
characters and the actors that play them as
the referent itself.[16] By calling the actors their screen names
– vs. - their real names, they maintain the simulation - or simulacrum -
because if the public refers to the actors real names, they then become common,
everyday people. They lose their
aura by exposing the fiction or fantasy.
The spell is broken. Freud
argues in his Civilizations and
it’s Discontents that humans want escape. They want to know that there has to be
something better or that it could always be worse[17].
Jerry Seinfeld is a great example of one
of the few artists that seems to have done it right. He made a name for himself –
publicly – doing exactly what
he was doing before stardom and syndication. More importantly, by accepting the
typecasting phenomenon, he then chose to typecast himself using his real name and associating that
television stardom perfectly to what he had always been doing. Therefore, with a willing public still
in need of their public persona, Jerry Seinfeld can continue to do exactly what
he has always done without having another character’s name (this could
also be argued as being a disguise or mask) hanging over his head for the rest
of his career. He NEVER switched
roles. He never took off the mask.
So, then how have artists used this need
to associate public personas with private points of views to their advantage
without being typecast into genres for the life of their careers? Most haven’t been able to do
that. However, some have, but to
limited success. Jackson Pollock,
Leroy Neiman, Thomas Kincaid are some of the examples of artists that appear to
be forever stuck in the styles that made them famous. If, in the case of Kincaid and Neiman,
they decide to dispose of the styles that made them famous altogether, it could then be argued that they will have significant
problems in achieving the same fame with their new “look” as they
did with the original “look.”
This “full-circle” is a point in which one could argue that
the individual has been typecast.
Again I will come back to Hans Haacke and
Paul McCarthy to illustrate two artists that have defied classification, but
not necessarily typecasting, in their artworks portraying their political
stances. The difference here is
these artists have incorporated that
typecasting to their advantage. How has this been accomplished?
Hans Haacke, in his work Sanitation 2000 (which was premiered at
the Whitney Museum Biennial of that same year), seems to have played the
public, and more specifically, then Mayor Rudy Giuliani to a
“T.” This work
essentially took the ‘then mayor’ to task for his public crusade
the previous year against the
Haacke’s Sanitation is in a small-darkened room with three American flags
hanging in the center of one illuminated wall. They are flanked by six quotes from
political figures condemning artworks they have deemed offensive from the
original Sensation exhibit. All text made use of Gothic Fraktur
font, a font favored by the Nazi regime during the Third Reich. Three of the comments are from Guiliani
himself and his condemning of the Sensation
show. The other quotes in Sanitation are provided by three of
Haacke’s favorite targets: Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson and Jesse
Helms. A passage from the first
amendment is on the floor, surrounded by twelve Rubbermaid trash cans. Finally, reverberating out of the trash
cans is the crunching of military boot steps. However, the artwork didn’t stop
there. Gauging the public’s
outcry to the comparison of the Nazi’s and their violent suppression of
freedoms, Haacke soon became the spotlight of public attention in his public
sparring with Guiliani. Each side
then accused the other of “trivializing the Holocaust.” No stranger to public controversy, Haacke
took it in stride in his various public appearances where he was further able to state his case. Taken together, this all encompassed the strategy of Sanitation. Much of the politically charged work
these days considers these appearances as a vital part of the work itself.
Paul McCarthy, on the other hand, is his own controversy. Through his various performances,
McCarthy is able to transform himself and take his public persona to even
greater heights. In a work entitled
“Bossy Burger,” 1991, McCarthy outfitted himself in a
chef’s costume (or disguise) and Alfred E. Newman mask and performed a
cooking show parody on a homey set
once used for the television sitcom The
Hogan Family. McCarthy
transforms ketchup and raw hamburger meat into a bloody massacre. McCarthy’s performance is captured
on video for presentation on a monitor outside
the production set; most of the intended audience having not witnessed the
original scripted event.
McCarthy’s absence from the “finished work,” (i.e. a
video of the event and the production set) which was totally destroyed and now
consisted of what could be termed the ‘remnants’ or
‘garbage’ left over from the performance, is making a statement
about the absurdity of the art market and its definitions of what art is. Much like the parody of a television
sitcom, it would appear that McCarthy is mimicking or parodying the fact that
these ‘art shows’ and idyllic family sitcoms, (and Hollywood for
that matter) have very much in common and are nothing more than a fantasy
dreamland (or a cheap debased construction) that has never really existed in
the first place and is therefore, subject to constant change. In light of this explanation, the
carnage of “Bossy Burger”
mutely testifies to a strangely comic violence that American audiences have
disturbingly become desensitized to.
The most surreal aspect of Bossy
Burger stems from the chef’s (artists) manically self-absorbed
pleasure in the chaos he creates.
Through the use of video monitors and masks, McCarthy allows the viewer
to relate the views of the political piece to the artist himself, but – and this is key - he does so on his terms! The audience
is not allowed to see anything but the simulation and the leftover destruction
of the once idyllic family setting (which itself is also shown to be false).
So, in these cases, I had hoped to argue
the difficulty of separating the artist from the political views being
portrayed. It would even appear
that these two artists have accepted and, in some cases, invited this phenomenon and used it to their advantage in their
respective artworks. More
specifically, these artists understood this phenomenon well and took this into
consideration when they made these artworks. This consideration is human’s apparent need for accountability when
addressing views of a slanted nature, before
presenting the final product to the public for discourse. In Haacke’s case (and his
“cool” handling of an explosive topic in the artwork Sanitation), he seems to relish and
anticipate the controversy that ensues to further illuminate his views in the
interviews that seem to always follow.
Thus, creating a discourse in which to further ponder these questions
publicly.
In light of these examples, it then might
behoove the artist to craft his public persona to accommodate an anticipated
public reaction for maximum effect in a politically slanted artwork. If the artist is then able to give his
audience a little of what they expect, the artist then will have the
viewer’s complete attention.
Once he has their attention, he is then in the position to show them
another possibility of seeing an issue they once believed to be gospel. This, I feel, is the key to the success
of the politically active artist and their level of credibility in addressing
subjects of a political nature.
They are accepting what would appear to be common thought and/or opinion
and turning that perception upside down.
Thus making use of the “old bait-and-switch.”
Conclusion
I’d like to first reiterate my
stances in utilizing satire, parody and irony in politically active art. First off, I had hoped to argue that the
use of satire, parody and irony can be an extremely effective tool in
addressing the public; especially in the area of art as political
activism. By employing S,P&I,
an artist is able (through poignant humor and twist of fate) to address
sensitive subject matter in such a way as to not seem too heavy handed, yet at the same time without loosing any
if its metaphorical punch. By
arguing that S,P&I cannot stand alone, I had hoped to illustrate that the
only way a parody, for example, can be effective is by employing irony as its
transitional element bridging the gap between the simulacra of subject matter
into the decidedly slanted parody of the referent.
Finally,
by an artist employing satire, parody and irony in politically activist
artwork, I asked this question: Is
it not possible then for an artist to address a view as an actor by simply
playing a role? I hope, I have
effectively argued that will not
happen. An artist, much like an
actor, will most likely be typecast at some point in their careers. Then one might ask: How, then can
typecasting help or hurt one’s position? To answer this question, I’ll
again use Hans Haacke as an example.
No one expects Hans Haacke’s artwork to criticize a liberal agenda. Therefore, Haacke’s criticism may
then be said to be “pigeonholed” as always liberal and potentially less effective because it fits
neatly into simple binary opposition with conservative ideals. However, I have also tried to argue, once understood, that this is not
always such a bad thing. This
phenomenon can be a very effective tool as long as the artist understands and
accepts this tendency. The artist
then is able to capitalize on this very powerful position and use it to their
advantage by “playing the role” in such a way as to be able to
dictate the terms and views in which the public will be able to associate to them directly. In this way, the political artist and
political views being portrayed have support and are much more effective in
their political stances and slants, thus placing the political artist in a very
powerful position indeed.
[1] Kellogg,
Stephen. Chicken Little. William Morrow& Co.:
[2]
Baudrillard, Jean. “The Procession of Simulacra.” Art After Modernism: Rethinking Representation. Brian Wallis, ed.
[3]
Wallis, Brian, ed. Hans Haacke:
Unfinished Business.
Page. 14.
[4]
Webster’s New Ideal Dictionary.
G&C Merriam Company:
[5]
Starkman, Miriam Kosh. “Introduction.” Gulliver’s Travels and Other
Writings. Jonathan Swift.
[6]
Webster’s New Ideal Dictionary.
G&C Merriam Company:
[7]
Phillips, Lisa ed. Paul McCarthy.
[8]
Rose, Margaret A. Parody:
Ancient, Modern and Post-Modern.
[9]
Morrissette, Alanis. Jagged Little Pill. Release Date: Jun 13 1995
Label: WARNER BROTHERS
[10]
Webster’s New Ideal Dictionary.
G&C Merriam Company:
[11] Frank Saunder was on the staff of Vice President for Cultural Affairs for the Phillip Morris Company.
[12] La Generazione delle Immagini: Public Art – Hans Haacke, http://www.undo.net/cgi-bin/openframe.pl?x=/Facts/Eng/fhaacke.htm.
[13] George Weissman was the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Phillip Morris Company.
[14] La Generazione delle Immagini: Public Art – Hans Haacke, http://www.undo.net/cgi-bin/openframe.pl?x=/Facts/Eng/fhaacke.htm.
[15] Seinfeld. Sony Pictures Television 1991 – 1998.
[16]
Baudrillard, Jean. “The Procession of Simulacra.” Art After Modernism: Rethinking Representation. Brian Wallis, ed.
[17] Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and its discontents. Garden City, N.Y., Doubleday, 1958.