I have struggled to decide on a basis for my essay over the past couple of weeks, i want to find an interesting idea that isn't an obvious take on the questions we chose from. the problem is that the further you stray from the mainstream the harder it becomes to find literature to back up your ideas or to argue against. I have been looking a lot at the Thatcher era and the way illustration was used to in that time. As it was a period of unrest that polarized opinions about the countries leadership it was a situation that triggered powerful emotional responses from each side of the divide many of which took the form of illustrations.
Even though I had found a period of time and a general subject to concentrate on I still did not have a starting point for my essay. I started to look at satire and how it has been used during Thatcher's time as prime minister. Gerald Scarfe's illustrations depicted Thatcher as aggressive and sharp, characteristics that her fans would see as positive attributes rather than something to be made fun of. Scarfe's illustrations were obviously anti Thatcher but had a level of honesty and accuracy that may have made his work more effective. If people see that an image is accurate and and relates to current events and views held by both sides of the political divide the message of the image can be more easily trusted and in that way more effective.
Scarfe also had the benefit of his work being seen by a large portion of the population as it was published in newspapers on a regular basis meaning he could bit by bit alter the viewers perceptions and keep his work up to date with current events.
It was interesting to see the ways effective satire worked, in most cases it seems that effective satirical illustrators use a subtle approach that that maintains there credibility and means that their work is met with more trust. The further you try to push boundaries the the less credible you work becomes and the less effective. something else to be taken into account is the over saturation of satirical images meaning that the population becomes desensitized and limits the effectiveness of the images forcing illustrators to change their way of thinking. I found a really good article on ft.com made up of interviews with a variety of people well known for their satirical work.
The most interview i found most interesting is with Jonathan Coe in which he argues satire instead of stirring up rebellion and encouraging the population to take action against the political issue they disagree with in fact provides a safe environment for like minded people to vent their frustrations in the form of laughter and discussion instead of taking action. Satire can be seen as much as a tool for the rich and powerful as a rebellion against them. It provides a way for the public to feel they have won a battle or made a point without taking any notable action that could effect change.
I would like to base my question on the evolving relationship between an illustrator and their audience during times of social and political upheaval.
No comments:
Post a Comment