Is the Joker really black?!?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 7:47 am

I find this article in the Washington Post and wonder how the hell do these people get their jobs?

about halfway through the piece he finally makes the giant leap into la la land and offers this:

So why the anonymity? Perhaps because the poster is ultimately a racially charged image. By using the \"urban\" makeup of the Heath Ledger Joker, instead of the urbane makeup of the Jack Nicholson character, the poster connects Obama to something many of his detractors fear but can't openly discuss. He is black and he is identified with the inner city, a source of political instability in the 1960s and '70s, and a lingering bogeyman in political consciousness despite falling crime rates.

It's just silly. The makeup is \"urban\"?

I sent him this comment via the websites email function:

You really are reaching far up your sleeve to pull the race card in your interpretation of the Obama/Joker poster.

Your piece makes me wonder why you feel a need to fabricate a sinister motive for the poster instead of realizing it is just not that clever of an attack.

Your tactic of playing the race card in this case reveals you have the same instincts as the average democrat politician...you know you want to attack the poster but don't really have anything substantial to use so you fall back on this hackneyed response and turn it in to collect your paycheck.
Piss poor effort revealing a partisan motive instead of any kind of objective and informative observation.

You should refund your fee for that one! Or better yet see if Maxine Waters is hiring she could make use of your 'talent'.

I wonder if I'll be reported to the White House thought police?

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:08 am

Predictable as a clock… (the article)

Sorry, I do have more to say…but I’ve said it all before in other threads.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 8:08 am

Curious that after the art spree in the last 8 years by the likes of Maplethorp, of Bush as a Nazis and the Madonna covered in elephant dung, the left is finally now noticing bad taste in art.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 2:13 pm

Even I am smart enough to know that the Joker Obama image is to associate Obama with an evil insane mastermind, not some crazy racist propaganda...

flip · Post by **flip** » Thu Aug 06, 2009 3:11 pm

LOL

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 11:13 am

I think it is willfully naive to *ignore* the racial connotations of the image, even when not intended by the artist (and this is debatable). There is a difference between a white man wearing white face paint and when worn by a black man, simply because it is associated with different things. Whereas white face paint on whites is associated with the Joker, goths, clowns etc, in blacks it is reminiscent of images like the following:

These associations make the image even more effective as a propaganda tool, and associate Obama with something not-understandable, alien and also go quite well together with all the birther madness. Genius!

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 12:35 pm

Pandora, are you suggesting the poster would be better served if Obama's face was painted black.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 1:14 pm

I dunno. I didn't really get the tribal image in my mind when I saw the Obama/Joker pic. For whatever it's worth, the image that popped to mind for me was:

[I grew up watching 'classic' films with my family. I don't know that I'd associate this film with stereotypical blackface, but Pandora does have a point in that there can be connotations, even if unintended.]

------------------

Personally, I'm not surprised at the image, its supporters, or its detractors.

<shrug> If you like it, you're free to say so. If you don't like it, you're free to say so. The freedom for this kind of debate is what free speech is all about.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 2:13 pm

Pandora wrote:I think it is willfully naive to *ignore* the racial connotations of the image, even when not intended by the artist (and this is debatable). There is a difference between a white man wearing white face paint and when worn by a black man, simply because it is associated with different things. Whereas white face paint on whites is associated with the Joker, goths, clowns etc, in blacks it is reminiscent of images like the following:

{photos of aboriginals wearing traditional whiteface}

Reminiscent of aboriginals wearing whiteface...so it's supposed to bring out the bigot in us to remind us that Obama is the same as an aborigine?!? Do aborigines scare people more than african americans so did the poster need to make the black man look like a particularly scary version of a black man to get some racist reaction?

What about if my mind conjures up traditional Japanese beauty?

Does that mean I'm both a bigot and a homophobe?!?

Get off the oversensitivity train pleeeeaaaaassssseeeee!

Pandora wrote:These associations make the image even more effective as a propaganda tool, and associate Obama with something not-understandable, alien and also go quite well together with all the birther madness. Genius!

Actually the image associates him with something quite understandable and something that was just on the front burner of pop culture : The Joker a psycho killer in a movie that played to an audience of hundreds of millions around the globe!
So again I have to point out that someone is reaching way to far up their sleeve to pull out a magical race card!
Perhaps those that immediately go into racial alarm at the picture should check their own self for overt bigotry and examine why they feel a need to project it onto others...to rationalize their thoughts as normal and try to get some relief from guilt perhaps?!

He's a black man, we all know that. If you paint his face white to remind me he's a black man you haven't reminded me of anything!! It's like naming your dog Dog...not very clever and reveals nothing that isn't already well established.

Nightshade · Post by **Nightshade** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 4:00 pm

I dunno. I didn't really get the tribal image in my mind when I saw the Obama/Joker pic. For whatever it's worth, the image that popped to mind for me was:

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ASI/musi212 ... s/jazz.jpg

[I grew up watching 'classic' films with my family. I don't know that I'd associate this film with stereotypical blackface, but Pandora does have a point in that there can be connotations, even if unintended.]

What does race have to do anything with a joker poster? I believe it expresses Obama's criminal disregard of the will of the people. The democrats have adopted thug tactics all across the nation and its being evidenced in cell phone video everywhere.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 4:19 pm

ThunderBunny wrote:I believe it expresses Obama's criminal disregard of the will of the people.

That's the artist's intent, absolutely.

Do I believe that it's intentionally racial? No, I don't. I don't buy that argument; I think it's pretty clearly meant to be a 'crazy' image, not a racial one.

However...

Do I believe that it can bring up unintended connotations? Yes, I do. Again, I don't think that's the intent, but it brought the image I posted above to my mind, for example.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 4:37 pm

Pandora, that’s the biggest stretch you have ever made…in fact it might be the biggest stretch I ever heard anybody make.

Most americans wouldn’t know an aborigine from an eskimo.

VonVulcan · Post by **VonVulcan** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 6:01 pm

Spidey wrote:Pandora, that’s the biggest stretch you have ever made…in fact it might be the biggest stretch I ever heard anybody make.

Most americans wouldn’t know an aborigine from an eskimo.

X2

AlphaDoG · Post by **AlphaDoG** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 6:59 pm

Spidey wrote:Pandora, that’s the biggest stretch you have ever made…in fact it might be the biggest stretch I ever heard anybody make.

Most americans wouldn’t know an aborigine from an eskimo.

Nor would they know the difference between an aboriginal eskimo and an eskimo aboriginal.

Insurrectionist · Post by **Insurrectionist** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 7:22 pm

The National Theatre is set to spark more race controversy today with a production in which black actors will \"white up\".

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:35 pm

That's kinda like calling Passion of the Christ, anti-semetic.

lol Insurr, Eddie Murphy used to do this all the time.

TechPro · Post by **TechPro** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 8:53 pm

AlphaDoG wrote:Nor would they know the difference between an aboriginal eskimo and an eskimo aboriginal.

Ha ha ha!

Well timed.

Spidey · Post by **Spidey** » Fri Aug 07, 2009 9:29 pm

TechPro wrote:
AlphaDoG wrote:Nor would they know the difference between an aboriginal eskimo and an eskimo aboriginal.
Ha ha ha! Well timed.

Yes, but notice I chose to use the word aborigine not aboriginal…aborigine refers mostly to Indigenous Australians, as is the context here.

I know it’s semantics, but Indigenous Australians was what I meant.

Dedman · Post by **Dedman** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 8:55 pm

Spidey wrote:Pandora, that’s the biggest stretch you have ever made…in fact it might be the biggest stretch I ever heard anybody make.

Most americans wouldn’t know an aborigine from an eskimo.

Aborigine don't kill seals and therefore are good people.

Canuck · Post by **Canuck** » Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:18 pm

So what you propose Eskimos eat up there Dedman? Yellow snow? I had a PETA protester telling me that Eskimos should eat vegetables instead of seal meat. I asked her just how long is the growing season for vegetables in the Arctic... even her mind was able to grasp the concept.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:19 am

Well it would seem that there is a movement to take Obama's poster and stick them on things:

\"CLERMONT, Fla. -- A vocal and graphic Internet campaign attacking President Barack Obama just hit Central Florida and one of its first targets was a U.S. Post Office (see images). Several Lake County residents called WFTV when they spotted the 'Joker' posters on stop signs and saw workers scraping them off the post office in Clermont\"

http://www.wftv.com/news/20362245/detail.html

I am a poster lover and I approve this technique.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:03 pm

woodchip wrote:Curious that after the art spree in the last 8 years by the likes of Maplethorp, of Bush as a Nazis and the Madonna covered in elephant dung, the left is finally now noticing bad taste in art.

do you think the Obama Joker posters are bad art?

i think regardless of what you believe its great art, i can think of so many ways to look at or take the Joker posters

A a lot of great art involves holding up a secret societal mirror, this is an excellent example

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:18 pm

woodchip wrote:I am a poster lover and I approve this technique.

Wait, you approve of putting posters up illegally (e.g. on random walls, stop signs, etc.)?

I'm fine with people putting up posters and signs legally, whether I agree with the content or not. For example, those inane political or religious signs - that's protected speech.

If someone wants to pay for a giant Obama-Joker or Bush-Nazi billboard, he has every right. But slapping posters on public property like street signs? I don't care what the poster is, that's defacement.

TechPro · Post by **TechPro** » Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:16 pm

I agree.

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:23 pm

sorry for the hit and run post. Was not chickening out, just really busy.

I don't find what I have written such an extreme stretch at all. On the contrary, I find it very hard to believe that anyone would claim that the image *just* evokes the joker, and that no racial associations come into play at all. That's simply not the type of minds people have, and racial differences have been part of our culture for too long.

As Foil has said, any piece of art will have associations other than the main one. I am not denying that the Joker is the most obvious association, but what goes on in the back of people's minds is a different matter. And such diffuse associations might drive people's responses as effectively as the obvious associations. With regard to the aborigine thing, it is an association I had, my girlfriend had it, and a few people here at work as well, even though they find it hard at first to put the finger on whey they find the picture so disturbing. Also, this is the only image of Obama for which I had this response --- all the other ones that Woodchip has posted (Alfred E. Obama) did not evoke this at all.

Will, I am not claiming that the poster is supposed to bring out the racial bigot, I don't even believe that it is racist. My point is that it *also* has racial connotations and I believe it is naive to ignore them. If the artist is competent at all than he/she *is* aware of them, and so should anyone who uses it. There is a reason why this poster pushes people's button more strongly than others, and, frankly, just depicting Obama as the Joker is not nearly clever enough to explain it.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:44 pm

Pandora wrote:... There is a reason why this poster pushes people's button more strongly than others, and, frankly, just depicting Obama as the Joker is not nearly clever enough to explain it.

How about the creator of the poster is better at Photoshop than political commentary.
That explains it pretty damn well!

Just because you can imagine other reasons someone might have for the artwork doesn't mean you have any foundation to build upon.

I'm thinking Occams razor here, "plurality should not be posited without necessity."

Suggesting the creator had race as a motive deflects the criticism the creator launched at Obama by turning the argument back towards the creator implying racism as the motive behind the poster instead of political commentary.

If the "journalist" my original post was about had said something like. You know, besides the obvious dig at Obama likening him to the sociopath Joker character, seeing Obama in whiteface sort of conjures up an aborigine likeness that may play on fears of bigots.

Well that would at least give him the cover of objectivity to hide behind but he didn't present that angle he went straight into the democrat playbook of pull a race card out of your ass no matter how difficult to find. Even if your bicep stretches out your sphincter you have to reach so far...just pull it out!

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 10:29 am

Will Robinson wrote:Suggesting the creator had race as a motive deflects the criticism the creator launched at Obama by turning the argument back towards the creator implying racism as the motive behind the poster instead of political commentary.

Since when is a political commentator immune from criticism? I am not even sure that this qualifies for political commentary --- "propaganda" seems a more apt description. It's the poster equivalent to an ad-hominem. It serves to dehumanize Obama (painting him as the psychopathic Joker), and highlight his un-american-ness (highlighted by the word socialism). Nothing wrong with that, but lets call it what it is.

(the same goes for the Bush=vampire cartoons and so on, of course)

At the moment, the defenders of the poster hide behind the convenient "it's only the joker"-stance; any racial associations somebody might have in addition to that are ridiculed and the fault of the observer rather than the image. But it is a difference whether a white man paints his face white and whether a black man does it.

By the way, just if I was unclear, it is not my intent to defend the WaPo writer. He provides no foundation for his racism accusations, and I found the article pretty stupid (but you might think the same of what I am writing here, of course).

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:41 pm

Pandora wrote:
Will Robinson wrote:Suggesting the creator had race as a motive deflects the criticism the creator launched at Obama by turning the argument back towards the creator implying racism as the motive behind the poster instead of political commentary.
Since when is a political commentator immune from criticism? I am not even sure that this qualifies for political commentary --- "propaganda" seems a more apt description. It's the poster equivalent to an ad-hominem. It serves to dehumanize Obama (painting him as the psychopathic Joker), and highlight his un-american-ness (highlighted by the word socialism). Nothing wrong with that, but lets call it what it is.

No I think your observation is sincere, if you conjure up images of aborigines I believe you. I just don't believe it works that way for most people. Personally I don't associate aborigine with african so the connection never clicks in my mind nor the broader race association when I saw the poster. And yes it is basically ad hominum attack, unfortunately that has become a standard weapon in politics.

My point is the Washington Post writer didn't try to think it through he tried to spin a bad poster into racism for a political purpose.
The subtle associations you reference aren't worthy of an article but apparently "journalism" to protect ones party is.....

How about the latest one. I hear a news anchor asked if town hall protestors chanting "We want our country back" are actually using code language for racists with that line?!?! Apparently white people can't say much of anything against Obama without being racists!!
I've also heard that Socialism is the new N word.

I think the media has completely lost its mission and adopted a full time campaign staff mentality for the Obama administration. They are in denial since they shoved him down our throats now they feel the guilt of creating this mess and don't want to face his failures let alone report them.

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:01 pm

My point is the Washington Post writer didn't try to think it through he tried to spin a bad poster into racism for a political purpose.

completely agree!

How about the latest one. I hear a news anchor asked if town hall protestors chanting \"We want our country back\" are actually using code language for racists with that line?!?! Apparently white people can't say much of anything against Obama without being racists!!

I also agree with that. Calling people racist is a cheap cop-out to not engage their arguments or take them seriously.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Sun Aug 16, 2009 8:51 pm

think the media has completely lost its mission and adopted a full time campaign staff mentality for the Obama administration. They are in denial since they shoved him down our throats now they feel the guilt of creating this mess and don't want to face his failures let alone report them.

they did the same thing when bush went into Iraq, minus a handful of outliers. basically the media rides stories that are profitable.

Obama is the ultimate media darling though, he looked like he could be one of our most important leaders of all time from the makings of him! Problem is, now he actually needs to make a positive impact!

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:16 pm

Birdseye wrote:...
Obama is the ultimate media darling though, he looked like he could be one of our most important leaders of all time from the makings of him! Problem is, now he actually needs to make a positive impact!

I wonder though, if he ends doing nothing much from here out, will the media turn on him like they did Bush or will they carry the water for him and his party? My guess is the later.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:15 am

Well, to be fair the latter is more likely with some fierce conservative haters, but a lot of his bloatware programs aren't as obviously bad or bothersome to people as a multi trillion dollar war and dead bodies of innocent or soldiers.

That's not to let Obama off the hook, I wish he would do a lot of stuff very differently and given the cards he's been dealt (the economy, compared to 9-11 for bush) his stay in office will be measured on his economic plans as well as what agencies he creates that fester and waste tax payer dollars long term.

Gekko71 · Post by **Gekko71** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 5:29 am

Pandora wrote:I think it is willfully naive to *ignore* the racial connotations of the image, even when not intended by the artist (and this is debatable). There is a difference between a white man wearing white face paint and when worn by a black man, simply because it is associated with different things. Whereas white face paint on whites is associated with the Joker, goths, clowns etc, in blacks it is reminiscent of images like the following:

These associations make the image even more effective as a propaganda tool, and associate Obama with something not-understandable, alien and also go quite well together with all the birther madness. Genius!

Sorry folks - but this all seems like politically-driven mystification to me, rather than a meaningful semiotic deconstruction.

"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"

( That's according to Freud - not Clinton

)

(Ps: I don't think these images support your point Pandora. Unless I'm mistaken, the indigenous images you've drawn upon are examples of ceremonial adornment put on by indigenous performers prior to a Corroboree. Corroberees are a indigenous cutural practice that predate the birth of Christ by millenia. Racial politics have nothing to do with these images.

( ...I think the tribe in question is the Pintubi - but I'm no expert so don't quote me)

Pandora · Post by **Pandora** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:39 pm

Gekko71 wrote:
Pandora wrote:(Ps: I don't think these images support your point Pandora. Unless I'm mistaken, the indigenous images you've drawn upon are examples of ceremonial adornment put on by indigenous performers prior to a Corroboree. Corroberees are a indigenous cutural practice that predate the birth of Christ by millenia. Racial politics have nothing to do with these images.

you've missed the point I was trying to make. It was that the joker face would conjure up weird images associated with blacks, but not whites (like the ones posted, or Foil's example), but I did not imply that people would do any detailed processing of them. It therefore does not matter what is really depicted in the images, other than that they are weird and somewhat alien to us, and therefore further enhance the image of Obama as something un-american and alien.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:47 pm

i think everyone in the thread is misunderstanding the point of art, basically holding up a mirror to see what our reaction is and to see what we discuss and do, our reactions are what it means

Gekko71 · Post by **Gekko71** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:29 am

Pandora wrote:
Gekko71 wrote:
Pandora wrote:(Ps: I don't think these images support your point Pandora. Unless I'm mistaken, the indigenous images you've drawn upon are examples of ceremonial adornment put on by indigenous performers prior to a Corroboree. Corroberees are a indigenous cutural practice that predate the birth of Christ by millenia. Racial politics have nothing to do with these images.
you've missed the point I was trying to make. It was that the joker face would conjure up weird images associated with blacks, but not whites (like the ones posted, or Foil's example), but I did not imply that people would do any detailed processing of them. It therefore does not matter what is really depicted in the images, other than that they are weird and somewhat alien to us, and therefore further enhance the image of Obama as something un-american and alien.
Oh, okay I get you now - thanks for the clarification; though I'm still not sure if I agree.

Birdseye wrote:i think everyone in the thread is misunderstanding the point of art, basically holding up a mirror to see what our reaction is and to see what we discuss and do, our reactions are what it means

My personal opinion is that the artist (whomever they were) were not trying to divorce their own interpretation from the work. You're right in saying that once an artwork is created, we are free to interpret it any way we want and that the artist/auteur's intended interpretation becomes one of many possible interpretations. However, I'm still not personally convinced that all of this conjecture over the image isn't just mystification. My personal view is that we are all assigning meaning where there was none.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Tue Aug 18, 2009 4:06 pm

Artist is found:

\"Bored during his winter school break, Firas Alkhateeb, a senior history major at the University of Illinois, crafted the picture of Obama with the recognizable clown makeup using Adobe's Photoshop software\"

\"Alkhateeb says he wasn't actively trying to cover his tracks, but he did want to lay low. He initially had concerns about ...

... connecting his name with anything critical of the president -- especially living in Chicago, where people are \"very, very liberal,\" he said.\"

\"Although Alkhateeb claims he was making no political statement with the artwork, he's plugged into the Washington debate.\"

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washing ... rtist.html

so there you have it. Mystery solved.

\"After Obama was elected, you had all of these people who basically saw him as the second coming of Christ,\" Alkhateeb said. \"From my perspective, there wasn't much substance to him.\"

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:24 pm

My personal opinion is that the artist (whomever they were) were not trying to divorce their own interpretation from the work. You're right in saying that once an artwork is created, we are free to interpret it any way we want and that the artist/auteur's intended interpretation becomes one of many possible interpretations. However, I'm still not personally convinced that all of this conjecture over the image isn't just mystification. My personal view is that we are all assigning meaning where there was none

I don't think the artist's \"interpretation\" has to be anything other than to stir the public and see what they do. Obviously he's more likely to be from a negative Obama view, but I think he mainly just had a curiousity on how people would react, not some meaning about Obama's race and society and body image and all that crap.

Stroodles · Post by **Stroodles** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 2:29 pm

The artist made it as a joke, and it was originally backlaid on a TIME magazine cover, which he laughed about with some friends, and stuck on his Facebook page. A person, we are not sure whom, took the image, removed the TIME backround, added the word socialism, and passed it out around L.A.

The guy who made it intended it to be the joker, just as a joke, (He's an Obama supporter btw) and the guy who took it didn't alter the picture itself in any way.

Birdseye · Post by **Birdseye** » Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:30 pm

ya, not too surprising if what you say is correct. Just some guy who wanted to see what happened! I don't think of some deeper meaning here, its just a great firestarter

Is the Joker really black?!?

Is the Joker really black?!?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: