"Photography thus tends to restore the paternalistic nature of elections, whose elitist essence has been disrupted by proportional representation and the rule of parties (the Right seems to use it more than the Left). In asmuch as photography is an ellipse of language and a condensation of an 'ineffable' social whole, it constitutes an anti-intellectual weapon and tends to spirit away 'politics' (that is to say a body of problems and solutions) to the advantage of a 'manner of being', a socio-moral status... ...Needless to say the use of electoral photography presupposes a kind of complicity: a photograph is a mirror, what we are asked to read is the familiar, the known; it offers to the voter his own likeness, but clarified, exalted, superbly elevated into a type. This glorification is in fact the very definition of the photogenic: the voter is at once expressed and heroized, he is invited to elect himself, to weigh the mandate which he is about to give with a veritable physical transference: he is delegating his 'race'... ...Photography constitutes a veritable blackmail by means of moral values"
-Roland Barthes, Mythologies, "Photography and Electoral Appeal", 1957.
Contrast with the opposite. If I were God (or Cheney), I wouldn't want graven images neither. Partly on authoritarian bases, for a good way to keep people in line is to maintain a faceless omnipresence - the panopticon effect. But also because I don't want people overly swept up in their own narcissism at the expense of their reason.
Pretty thought-provoking stuff, and it puts another spin on the beer-summit, not as whether a face-to-face wasn't a good way of resolving the issue (it was...between the parties, that is) but its use as media spectacle. Consider the symbolism - the nation's race worries going down with a an object (drink) espousing the metaphorical pairing of "influence."
Hard to think about the de-individuating metonymies continually employed towards the effacement of differences without being reminded of the "third way." Oh, let's not call it fascism. Just happy-consciousness, forms of which we've seen before...with bad results down the line.
Thus a necessary correction. Not a "ubiquitous" president (meaning everywhere) but "utopian" president (meaning no where) for, as the article points out, it's the message that's the message...as it's been from the start.
Lewis, A fascinating essay about Obama's media strategy. Apparently, it's working (for Obama) so far. But the main concern (well, my main concern) still is the quality of Obama's leadership, of American governance under Obama, and of the evolution of American democracy. In the short term, his strategy of overwhelming the various media and diverse publics with multiple messages may be buoying his popularity. In time, however -- hopefully before the mid-term Congressional elections and certainly before Obama himself runs for re-election -- I expect his record of accomplishments and failures will become more important. Today, it's hard to judge him on much except his promises and his style. Eventually, the American public will consider what he actually has done on major issues such as economy/bailouts/government speding, Iraq/Afghanistan/Gitmo, health care, and environment. No doubt, Obama's personal style and communicaton strategy will continue to boost his popularity, but I expect the importance of those factors to diminish over time. I sure hope so. Ron C
Interesting post, LS. But on one point I have my own take. With Obama the message is not the message, the messenger is the message, Thus the adage that you should not blame the messenger for the message, does not apply in his case.
Ron - I am amazed. I think you sum up my views quite well, except I think we can begin to judge Obama on his actions - for example, the wasted money on pre-bankruptcy auto bail outs, the huge deficit and debt building, foreign policy decisions, etc. But as far as your view that his popularity so far is based on promises and style ( and I would add the participation of a weak media in refusing to act like journalists as opposed to teens with a crush on a celebrity), I agree.
Be honest ITP, deep inside you are hoping that the Beer Summit is an indication that President Obama may one day invite critical Canadian blogsters to the Whitehouse.
"Photography thus tends to restore the paternalistic nature of elections, whose elitist essence has been disrupted by proportional representation and the rule of parties (the Right seems to use it more than the Left). In asmuch as photography is an ellipse of language and a condensation of an 'ineffable' social whole, it constitutes an anti-intellectual weapon and tends to spirit away 'politics' (that is to say a body of problems and solutions) to the advantage of a 'manner of being', a socio-moral status...
ReplyDelete...Needless to say the use of electoral photography presupposes a kind of complicity: a photograph is a mirror, what we are asked to read is the familiar, the known; it offers to the voter his own likeness, but clarified, exalted, superbly elevated into a type. This glorification is in fact the very definition of the photogenic: the voter is at once expressed and heroized, he is invited to elect himself, to weigh the mandate which he is about to give with a veritable physical transference: he is delegating his 'race'...
...Photography constitutes a veritable blackmail by means of moral values"
-Roland Barthes, Mythologies, "Photography and Electoral Appeal", 1957.
Contrast with the opposite. If I were God (or Cheney), I wouldn't want graven images neither. Partly on authoritarian bases, for a good way to keep people in line is to maintain a faceless omnipresence - the panopticon effect. But also because I don't want people overly swept up in their own narcissism at the expense of their reason.
Pretty thought-provoking stuff, and it puts another spin on the beer-summit, not as whether a face-to-face wasn't a good way of resolving the issue (it was...between the parties, that is) but its use as media spectacle. Consider the symbolism - the nation's race worries going down with a an object (drink) espousing the metaphorical pairing of "influence."
Hard to think about the de-individuating metonymies continually employed towards the effacement of differences without being reminded of the "third way." Oh, let's not call it fascism. Just happy-consciousness, forms of which we've seen before...with bad results down the line.
Thus a necessary correction. Not a "ubiquitous" president (meaning everywhere) but "utopian" president (meaning no where) for, as the article points out, it's the message that's the message...as it's been from the start.
LS
Lewis,
ReplyDeleteA fascinating essay about Obama's media strategy. Apparently, it's working (for Obama) so far.
But the main concern (well, my main concern) still is the quality of Obama's leadership, of American governance under Obama, and of the evolution of American democracy.
In the short term, his strategy of overwhelming the various media and diverse publics with multiple messages may be buoying his popularity. In time, however -- hopefully before the mid-term Congressional elections and certainly before Obama himself runs for re-election -- I expect his record of accomplishments and failures will become more important. Today, it's hard to judge him on much except his promises and his style. Eventually, the American public will consider what he actually has done on major issues such as economy/bailouts/government speding, Iraq/Afghanistan/Gitmo, health care, and environment.
No doubt, Obama's personal style and communicaton strategy will continue to boost his popularity, but I expect the importance of those factors to diminish over time.
I sure hope so.
Ron C
Interesting post, LS. But on one point I have my own take. With Obama the message is not the message, the messenger is the message, Thus the adage that you should not blame the messenger for the message, does not apply in his case.
ReplyDeleteRon - I am amazed. I think you sum up my views quite well, except I think we can begin to judge Obama on his actions - for example, the wasted money on pre-bankruptcy auto bail outs, the huge deficit and debt building, foreign policy decisions, etc. But as far as your view that his popularity so far is based on promises and style ( and I would add the participation of a weak media in refusing to act like journalists as opposed to teens with a crush on a celebrity), I agree.
Be honest ITP, deep inside you are hoping that the Beer Summit is an indication that President Obama may one day invite critical Canadian blogsters to the Whitehouse.
ReplyDelete