Reading into the Obama-as-Joker poster ... or not

There's nothing like a controversial political caricature to get people talking, blogging and tweeting.

But when it comes to understanding those same cartoons -- as opposed to rehashing, reblogging and retweeting them -- context is key. 

The New Yorker magazine's infamous cover illustration of Barack and Michelle Obama in radical drag, bumping fists in the Oval Office as an American flag burns in the fireplace, is understood to be a parody of conservative paranoia, not an attack on the first couple. But put that same image on the cover of the Weekly Standard and the illustration takes on a vastly different meaning.

In this respect, the image of President Obama in Heath Ledger Joker-face is especially disturbing because it is completely devoid of context -- literary, political or otherwise. The image seems to have emerged from nowhere and was created by no one. Deracinated from authorial intent, Obama-as-Joker becomes a free-floating cipher that can be appropriated and re-appropriated by everyone.

Clearly, the poster -- which has already mutated into countless variations on the Internet -- communicates a virulent hostility to Obama, but in a vague and flailing way. It can mean anything and it could mean nothing. (The latter seems more likely than the former.) In some versions of the image, the word "socialism" has been appended to the poster. But as media outlets like CNN have pointed out, the Joker (as portrayed by Ledger in "The Dark Knight") was a rabid anarchist, which doesn't jibe well with the accusation of socialism.

Like Shepard Fairey's "Hope" poster, the mystery "artist" behind the Joker prank has borrowed and altered an existing media image of the president for his or her own creative ends. (It's from a cover shot of Obama featured on Time magazine.) In many ways, the Obama-as-Joker picture can be viewed as the evil twin of Fairey's "Hope" -- one is laudatory and arguably hagiographic while the other is mean-spirited and demonic. Maybe one day, a publicity-savvy museum will mount the two of them side-by-side in an exhibition on the malleability of the digital image.

Understandably, some people have latched on to the poster's white-face significance. Is the creator saying that the president is pretending to be someone he's not? Again, it's impossible to know for sure. The Joker was a garish parody of a clown, and a clown can be any race -- the white makeup doesn't necessarily have an ethnic subtext.

At one extreme, the poster suggests that Obama is a psychopath who is completely out of control and running afoul of the law -- which he clearly is not. For a cartoon or parody to work, it must have at least one toe placed firmly in the realm of reality -- a credible starting point from which to launch into the free-for-all ether of comedy.

The most that can be said about Obama-as-Joker is that it's a prank that the Joker himself would have been proud of. It has exploded like a cultural grenade -- an act of cultural terrorism? -- and has left meaningless chaos in its wake.

-- David Ng

Related:

Obama "Joker" Poster Causing a Stir in L.A. - KTLA

Image credit: Unknown

Comments

[Jack Frost]

Everyone has missed the point; and, indeed, why so serious? I believe there's a more subtle subtext at play here than just lampooning the president and social commentary. First, as has been stated in several articles, anyone whose seen "The Dark Knight," or is remotely familiar with the Joker, would know that the Joker is so far from socialism that the light of socialism would take ten million years to reach him. So what was the artist thinking when they decided to depict the president in such a way? Do you not think the artist was smart enough to know full well that Pres. Obama isn't the Joker or even remotely close to being the Joker? Do you not think the artist didn't know that the posters would create a hullabaloo? The point I'm trying to get at is perhaps it isn't the president whose suppose to be the Joker, but rather the artist him/herself. I say this because look at the commotion one little picture has stirred up; the Leftist all have their knickers in a knot and the Right are drooling like starving dogs...both sides just looking for the slightest reason to attack the other. The Joker would have a field day turning both sides on the other while they eat themselves, that's the whole point of the Joker. And maybe that's the whole point of the joke; create a controversy, upset the apple cart, and watch people go!

The Jokers Number One Fan

[Hrag]

Your post seems to miss the point on two counts.

Not everyone thinks the infamous New Yorker cover was so innocent, myself included, as it also evoked anti-immigrant American cartoons of the 19th C. even if that was subconscious on the artist's part.

Also, the other issue that you didn't really address that there is some suspicion about the image and its possible origins as most street artists would probably want to lay claim to such a "victory" as no one can argue with the fact that this image has become very successful online.

[Chris King]

I could really care less about the pic offensive. I think it is funny, that is as far as it goes for me.

[Dr Dave]

Idiots!! Simply put, this IS the new face of socialism with our so praised leader in another of his 'masks'. I wish he would just leave!

[Donald Frazell]

It is kinda funny, for a moment, not worth more than that in time and attention, no more than Fairey's poster deserved, but this is just as good. Cerrtainly not worth debate.

And that movie had to be the most overrated thing ever, well, since Star Wars anyway. It was just another Batman movie, a cartoon glorified. Amusing, as is this poster, and both deserve our eternal neglect after its moment in time. Hardly art.

art collegia delenda est

[Matt Sanchez]

It's hard to take this writer seriously when he refutes the obvious.

"the image of President Obama in Heath Ledger Joker-face is especially disturbing because it is completely devoid of context -- literary, political or otherwise"

The word SOCIALISM explains who Obama is and squarely places the poster in the political realm.

The image resonates because many of us have this feeling Mr. Obama is not who he seems or perhaps who we hope he is to be and this familiar clown is nothing to laugh about.

[Buford]

This smells like it was produced with intent of viral mass production by some smart young folks. The Dark Knight and the Joker character manages to be widely known in the mainstream and yet a cult hit, especially amongst the semi-disturbed kids on sites like 4chan, where many are trying to convince others to print up the images and post them everywhere.

Thus this image manages to be widely understood by a mass audience and still be edgy, especially combined with it's mysterious orgins and postings. Extremely effective viral marketing.

[notnews]

Yes it is hard to take this article and writer seriously. It's so obvious the writer is showing his political preference as opposed to actual journalism. A big problem this pro Obama newspaper has. They never write articles that may go against any of the current policies purely for reasons they don't want to say anything negative about this administration.

Well, you'll soon run out of political news if you can't write anything negative and thus I would imagine, lose a lot of readers. I for one will be glad for the day to come when LA times finally start reporting the truth and not their own bias oppinions.

[dyinginla]

...only the far left la times would try to over analyze the obvious........obama is lying to us......he is a socialist and so are you......it's pretty pathetic to watch you try and bs your way out of what is clear to eveyrone who is not a bleeding , free loading socialist JOKER

[Archie]

I think this was dreamed up by a pretty good graphic designer, with a pretty good understanding of Photoshop. The reason that it is creating such a stir is not only the subject matter but that it is a good piece of art. I'll be surprised if he or she identifies him or herself. He or she may not really feel this strongly anti-Obama. They probably can't even define what socialism is. It is just a controversial poke at an icon - and that is half the fun.

[st.peter]

How about we post the image of a true socialist... jesus christ as the joker, anybody? I think he was more of a socialist than obama would ever dream of being. lets see he provided free health care to the sick.

[Mariposa Blanca]

Is the artist critiquing socialism or Obama? Perhaps they are simply trying to communicate that socialism is a joke. Obama just happens to be the political figure that is currently representing a paradigm shift towards socialist ideals such as universal healthcare.

I read the image as disturbing and critical. This artist is definitely not a fan of socialism. Fear is invoked through the use of the Joker. I think that the intention here is that the ideals of socialism should be feared.

anyways, this poster has stirred up an interesting dialogue and that is the intention of a piece such as this. Whether one agrees with the artist or not this artist has met success.

[Hurr Durr]

I think Obama is pretty cool guy. Eh uses subtle racism, implements socialist policies and doesn't afraid of anything.

[lark]

I think it's a racist reference to blackface.

The point is to make Obama look like a entertainer from the throwback days of American racism. It's undermining him, by folks who hate having a Black president. It's demeaning, intended to be demeaning, and that is why it is anonymous.

[ng is an idiot]

Ng, you are either stupid, ignorant, naive, or evil. Obama not breaking the law??? please he is trashing the Constitution just like Bush was doing...If you trust Obama so much I hope you are the first to sign up for vaccines in the fall and ask for seconds.

[Lafawnda]

Obama is out of control. He finds the constitution "deeply flawed", his spending is 4 times as it was under Bush, he has done nothing bi-partisan.

He's an arrogant about his irresponsibility. That's why the Joker thing works.

[Jack]

Gee, Dave, you're so much smarter than the rest of us. And so nuanced! I guess that's why you get to write about "art" in a failing urban daily in a bankrupt state. Way to go! (PS: Can't wait for the Joker stamp).

Jack

[kernsmart]

What makes this poster so intriguing is not the lack of context, but the abundance of context. Without context there would not be this kind of reaction from people.

I don't pretend to know the message or political motivations of whoever started this (and it really doesn't matter) but the emotion this strikes in me is fear. The joker was attempting to remake Gotham into his own image... anarchy.

The makeup was a clear indication that the Joker wasn't playing within the lines. Similarly President Obama is trying to remake America in his own image, just like the Joker. While the President's image is completely different, socialism or not, both strike fear in people. It is clear that the President is willing to push some boundaries to get what he wants. Is he outside the lines? Depends on how you view him.

[Gus Levy]

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." Norman Thomas (leader of American Socialist Party 1930s) The LATimes noted - disingenuously - how it couldn't quite figure out why this Obama poster became such a hot topic...ummm, there's a small little website called the Drudge Report. Now, this writer attempts - disingenuously and quite idiotically - that it's hard to quite figure out the context of the poster...ummm, indeed, on a literal level, if you look at the poster from a certain angle as the sun is setting just so it really does make him look like the VIrgin Mary! The writer is clearly as dumb as he would like to think the reading audience is.

[Tusec]

Congrats to the writer for showing some restraint and only suggesting that *maybe* the white makeup is a racist gesture. Most liberals who raise the issue are 100% convinced (or pretend to be) that it means the artist is some kind of bigot.

My question is this -- historically, wasn't it actually *blackface* that was associated with racist minstrel shows? Whiteface, on the other hand, is associated with Marcel Marceau and clowns, not with anything to do with race. Isn't it a bit of a stretch to see it as racist? And doesn't it show how desperately the left WANTS to see the image as racist, so that it can be easily dismissed?