The power of images (continued)

Original Post:
In response to the Danish cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, an Iranian paper plans to run cartoons of the Holocaust.

It's amazing that the very simple cartoons could stir up such a reaction. Perhaps images have more power to the people that do not concern themselves with them (or avoid them) on a daily basis. Is Iconoclasm a way to preserve the power of images? I'm intrigued by how an image is given presence by a viewer. What must the cartoon look like to the devout and offended Muslim? Do they see a personification of evil? Irreverence? What did Chris Ofili's piece in the Sensation show look like to the devout Catholic? Is it a personal affront experienced as sarcasm or does one sense actual danger inherent to the image?

I think many artists seek that sort of attention for their images, or desire an image to have that semblance of power. What must one do to get people to look at a painting? Obviously, the people most offended by Ofili's piece or Serrano's "piss christ" were incapable of seeing the art in the piece, but the power given to the image was arguably greater in the unschooled or religious than in the experienced art viewer.

Reponse by T.K.

Hi Hobo! This subject is all we hear about in Norway these days...but not exactly your take on it...I think you're right about the image gaining in power in it's absence,- but more than anything, the cartoons ridiculed Muhammed, who sits right in the middle of the Muslim's heart. To me the reactions of the Muslim world isn't so interesting, it just is- you can't argue with it. The way I see it, if the West wants to do business with them, they have to meet them on their terms. Noone is forcing any Western country into the Muslim world, the West wants in.

About who could and couldn't see the art in "piss christ",- I think every reaction to it encompasses the "art" of the piece,- wasn't being offended a part of it?


More discussion:

Teresa,

I do think that being offended was part of the art from the standpoint of the artist or sympathetic viewer perhaps, but I doubt that the offended would accept there being any art in it. The Danish cartoons: the one with the bomb is an image that I can see one getting offended over. There is something about the medium and technique in that one that makes it look sacred. Perhaps the fact that it formally references historic pictorial conventions of the Mid East makes it a bit more pointed. The pictorial conventions of the other cartoons (newspaper comic conventions), which I saw first, surprised me that a Muslim would give them a second glance. Obviously, the content/subject is integral in all cases.

The retaliation of the Iranian paper publishing cartoons of the holocaust is interesting. How will westerners respond to it? It brings up a significant point about humor and also about images. Is one willing to appreciate humor only at the expense of someone else? Does it no longer become insightful or funny when it questions one's own sense of the sacred?

The other issue is whether something being portrayed is an endorsement by the person who makes it. Is Kurt Westergaard expressing an opinion of his own or commenting on the way something may be seen by a culture?

Perhaps an image is a mysterious place where one can try out thoughts without necessarily endorsing them. If one depicts a murder, does that mean that one is a murderer? I don't know if there is a clear cut answer. Maybe in the image one explores the part of the human psyche that is capable of murder. An actor must play diverse roles in a lifetime that may be very different from his/her natural temperament. It doesn't seem you could rightly say that the actor is the person he portrays, but then again, you can't outright exclude him from it. Images are dangerous. Long live Images.