The Expert on Political Photo Analysis on the New Yorker Cover

[On the Road]

I know, I know, one more thread. But if you've ever read Bag News Notes, you'll know why this analysis is different.

The "What" Of What's Wrong With The Barack Osama New Yorker 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.

---snip

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:

---snip

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.

http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/2008/07/the-politics-of.html

It expresses what I've been trying to put my finger on -- that regardless of the New Yorker's intentions or whether people 'get it', images have their own power that goes well beyond those things.

[redstate_democrat]

1. The height of snobbery for these guys to think it's all about them and their creative license

in this historical and important election. I've seen some of the lamest attempts to justify and defend this crap today from some of the most insufferable eggheads among t.v. intellectuals. Some from the New Yorker seemed to take on the attitude that art trumps all...all about creativity and such.

Birth of a Nation was called art.
Minstrel shows were called art. I have a gut feeling that some of the more "enlightened" "intellectuals" at the New Yorker would have been some of the very people dressing up in black face to participate in a Minstrel show to mock or satirize.

It just seems more self-indulgent than illuminating.

[On the Road]

2. The World of the New Yorker is Pretty Insular

and strictly within that world, it probably wasn't a big deal.

The fact that it didn't stay there is testament to the power of the image.

[Laelth]

3. The image accuses the Obamas of treason.

Yes, images are powerful. There can be no doubt of that. The reason this particular image is so offensive, imho, is that it accuses the Obamas of the most serious crime in American jurisprudence, the only one defined by the Constitution.

My concern is this: We Democrats have become so accustomed to being called traitors that we fail to respond appropriately when the accusation is made. We should be angry and insulted. We should respond forcefully, and not make John Kerry's mistake (refusing to respond). Silence can be (and often is) interpreted as an admission.

The picture in question depicts the Obamas as enemies of the state. It depicts them as traitors. The subtle point that The New Yorker was trying to make is not apparent from the picture, itself. I feel it is unwise to dismiss an accusation of this magnitude. I hope that Obama will recognize it for what it is and respond appropriately.

-Laelth


Parts of this post are reposted from another DU thread.

[MonkeyFunk]

4. The image points out the silliness

of those who accuse Obama of treason.

[Laelth]

5. I honestly believe that was the image's intent.

But it doesn't do a very good job of that, does it?

-Laelth

[MonkeyFunk]

6. I think it did a fine job of it

the problem lies with people who see what they feel is a negative depiction of Obama and then their brains shut off. They refuse to think beyond that point and just reflexively scream about a perceived attack on Obama.

[Laelth]

7. Hmm ...

I am a rather contemplative person. I am sad to see you are not available to hear what I have to say. Fair enough.

-Laelth

[MonkeyFunk]

8. Well I'm sorry you can't imagine

that somebody understand you and still disagree with you.

[cali]

9. Errol Morris isn't screaming. He's making some pretty cogent

points. This is my first comment on the topic. I get the intent and I think people are making a mountain out of a mole hill about it, but Morris makes some good points, and he's definitely not screaming.

[On the Road]

11. Try Reading Some More Pieces on That Site

It's updated frequently. He had some fascinating stuff on how Kerry was depicted in 2004.

It's not about shutting your brain off. It's about the power of images and when they communicate below the surface. And Mr. BAGNewsNotes (forget his name) has devoted years to studying this.

[ellacott]

12. CNN showed it to people "on the street" to get their opinion

One person said "it shows him for who he is". Another person said, "it's a fair depiction". Many made similar remarks.

That's why there can be a problem with the picture.

[Hoof Hearted]

10. a "photo" analysis.... ....... ............. of a CARTOON.

not to rob her of her fabulousness, but..........

wakemeupwhenitsover

[blondeatlast]

13. I "got" the parody, but I just didn't think it worked; it didn't deliver. ChoppedLiver saw

it the way I did--and so did dozens of DUers yesterday.

Quality-wise, there just isn't any.