BAGnewsNotes

Bitter Has Its Own Poster

#1

#2

#1:  Shepard Fairey's original Obama poster.
#2: The reformulated version on wingnut Michelle Malkin's blog, riffing on the Clinton attack.

Writes Al Shaw, with a take on the graphic design:

Its meticulously-spaced three lines of copy are a direct hit at Obama's signature both in terms of copywriting style ("CHANGE / We can believe in") and his extensive use of the Gotham typeface. On the surface, the parody works—Obama looks arrogant with an upturned chin, and the O in "SNOB" mimics his recurring logo, reiterated over and over with his message of HOPE.

On a deeper level, however, this spoof falls apart because everything it references contradicts what it tries to convey. Shepard Fairey's art is as anti-elitist as it gets. Check out some of the sightings of the poster for an example of what I'm talking about. The typography also reiterates populism. As H&FJ (the creators of Gotham) recount, the font actually originated out of New York's "vernacular lettering" and signage-- liquor store neon signs, hand painted truck lettering, the sign at the Port Authority Bus Terminal, etc. (not exactly bastions of elitism). It was designed to be quintessentially American--lettering from before the era of "graphic design."  Considering the Malkin spoof, the letterforms contradict what the words have to say.

Writes The BAG, with a take on the political design:

1. With a preacher-like feel, I'm wondering if there isn't a racial element here, too.  Echoes of Reverend Wright?

2. Sorry, but with the hair missing, and the loss of the red to frame the blue facial shading, I get a little skittish seeing Obama's head cocked back and his eyes closed, that dark blue simultaneously winding around his neck and forming a great gaping gap.  And what about that red now?

Photoshop of the week: Typical liberal snob (Michelle Malkin)
HRC Continues Attacks On Obama's Remarks (MSNBC)
'Bitter' Is a Hard Pill For Obama to Swallow (WAPO)

(illustration 1: Shepard Fairey via obeygiant.com.  illustration 2: Tennyson via michellemalkin.com)

Naked Power

I think the story that's been flying around the echo chamber the last two days really has little to do with whether a naked woman might have actually been reflected in Cheney's shades.  In my mind, at least, the real story has more to do with all the hoo-ha over it, demonstrating how Cheney's naked exercise of power over the past seven years tends to be equated with being a stud.

The fact that so many people are also teheeing over the sexual innuendo based on the true reflection -- involving the broadly grinning Dick holding his fishing rod -- seems like no accident either.  In November of '04, the wingnuts at Wizbang made a telling connection between the vicious air campaign unleashed on Baghdad and a news photo supposing to evidence Cheney's prodigious physical endowment.  They titled their post: "Dick Cheney's Shock And Awe."

Is that really a naked woman reflected in Cheney's sunglasses? (Atlanta-Journal Constitution)
Blow up of original image (whitehouse.gov)
Dick Cheney's Shock And Awe (Wizbang)
The Outdoors (White House photo essay - Cheney's fishing trip to Idaho)

(image: David Bohrer/White House. April 2008.  whitehouse.gov)

Keep The Change.

Check out this McCain sequence in a Brooklyn pizza joint yesterday.  A couple weeks after lambasting borrowers as much as lenders for the mortgage meltdown, McCain has supposedly done a 180˚.  (At least, without the details.)  So how did McEconomics redress his charge that those good folks who got played by the finance companies should have known better?

By hitting this pizza counter and refusing change for his dollar.

....

(4/12 4:15 PM EST.  Sorry, temporarily took this post down to rework the analysis which, frankly, didn't make a lot of sense.  At this point, I'm taking a pass, but invite you to riff on it further if you wish.)

McCain, in Shift, Seeks U.S. Help for Homeowners (NYT)

(image 1: Mary Altaffer/AP.  image 2: Shannon Stapleton/Reuters. New York. April 10, 2008. via YahooNews)

Serpentine Days

This was  yesterday's "last visual word" on the Petraeus testimony offered up by the NYT.

Since I'm currently in Rochester, participating on a panel at the RIT Kern Conference on Visual Rhetoric, I had the occasion to gather some thoughts on the image from a crackerjack team of visual academicians, including Northwestern's Bob Hariman and Indiana U.'s John Lucaites (co-authors of No Caption Needed), and Cara Finnegan from University of Illinois and first efforts.

In the dead-tree edition, in which you can see all the shoes on the floor, John's first take was: "boots on the ground."

As for the committee, they saw the General representing the serpentine head of of a military institution which has been cut off but for the one spokesman, who is marginalized and dislocated.  Checking out the hands under the table, the school boy quiescence demonstrates that assessment has been silenced.  Also noted was the fact that Petraeus's mug is actually blocking a symbol of one of the service branches on the wall -- more evidence that Petraeus has become a branch unto himself.

With that, Lucaites slithered in the direction of the biblical, coming back with: "Anyone for an apple?"

Iraq’s Military Seen as Lagging (NYT)

(image: Brendan Smialowski for The New York Times, April 9, 2008. Washington. nytimes.com)

President Matthews

Some thoughts on the image leading the early-release 8000 word NYT Magazine piece on Chris Matthews (the photo supplied by, yep, Chris Matthews).

1.  Great shot of President Matthews. Who's the minor aide in the red-and-blue tie that Chris couldn't be bothered with?

2. As a guy famous for his sexism, ain't this the ultimate boys club?

3. What's most surprising about the pic is the suggestion that Chris could have actually been even younger than he is now.

... I was going to raise a stink about how Chris landed in the limelight of the political media universe at this particular moment, but you know, with what Petraeus was allowed to get away with earlier this week, the Matthews chaser seems perfectly fitting.

The Aria of Chris Matthews (NYT Magazine)

(image: unattributed.  from Chris Matthews. caption: 1980  With President Jimmy Carter on Air Force One. Matthews is seated, lower right, next to Hendrik Hertzberg and in front of Jody Powell.  nytmes.com)

Iraq Civil War - #5 (Day 13): The Reality Barrier

A smart way to figure out what's going on in Iraq is to simply follow photographer Michael Kamber.  You'll never get the message between the eyes, because Mike's too smart for that.  But, between the image and the caption, you'll get it between the lines.  In this case, I thought I'd juxtapose one of Michael's shots from Sadr City yesterday with a shot of events, same day, in the parallel universe occupied by Crock-er and Pet-raeus.  (Both images, as well as a few more of Kamber's photos, appeared in yesterday's NYT Pictures of the Day.)

Although the uprising that took place two weeks ago in Basra has been soft-peddled by the media, the Administration and even Clinton and Obama -- or simply attributed to trouble making by Iran by way of the evil Mr. al-Sadr (even though it was Iran that pulled the parties apart two weeks ago, and Maliki is closer to Iran than al-Sadr is) -- it's looking pretty clear that the violent fracturing of the Shiite factions constitutes a real (shh! shh!) civil war.

But then, who has the audacity to say so, let alone acknowledge that the fighting that broke out in Basra never really ended, but rather shifted to Baghdad where U.S and pro-Maliki Shiites forces, under the banner of the Iraqi Army, are now in a tense, and escalating standoff with the Mahdi faction in Sadr City, a confrontation that is also actively threatening the Green Zone.

Like I said, follow Kamber like a pointer.  His caption:

A boy hid from sniper fire in Sadr City near an area of machine gun and artillery fire, and an occasional stray round from snipers hissed through the air. American armored Stryker vehicles and about 30 Iraqi Army vehicles were blocking the street nearby.

U.S.-Iraqi joint operations in inter-Shiite conflict.  Build up of heavy armor.  Retaliation by sniper.  Duck and cover.  How sad the only way we can we can jump the news barrier (unless you're reading McClatchy) is by inference.

As Petraeus testifies, Baghdad teeters on edge of erupting (Mcclatchydc.com)
Pictures of the Day, April 8 (NYT Slide Show)
Iraq Civil War series (Charts last 13 days of Iraq's civil war - BAGnewsNotes)

(image 1: Doug Mills/The New York Times.  Washington. April 8, 2008.  nytimes.com.  image 2: Michael Kamber for The New York Times.  Sadr City.  April 8, 2008.  nytimes.com)

Your Turn: Bruising Hillary

I was interested in your take on the provocative cover of the Village Voice.

The article attacks MSNBC, and particularly, Joe Scarborough, for his intense Hillary hate.  But as a cover illustration, the image is far more loaded than to simply hew to the story.  (You know, by the way, that Scarborough is infamous for having represented Michael Griffin. Griffin was accused of murdering an abortion doctor in Pensacola, and in 1993, Scarborough took on the case pro bono concurrent with his run for Congress.)

I'm specifically wondering how this image plays today, given the trajectory of the Democratic race.  Two months ago, for example, if such an image dared appear, I think it would have caused an uproar, given its coding for violence against women.  But then, is it possible that the evolution of the gender debates, along with our growing familiarity and knowledge of the individual characters of Clinton and Obama through the chapters in this novel campaign brings a more nuanced reaction to an image like this?

And then, one must also consider the context of the image at this specific point in time, especially given Hillary's recent self-identification as "a fighter"; her comparison of herself and her campaign to Rocky (who was battered by Apollo Creed); and the degree of grit she has shown digging in and casting off calls for her withdrawal.  With all that in mind, might the campaign even find some satisfaction in an image like this for its post-New Hampshire, post-"tearful self-discovery," almost gender-defying quality?

But then, can one actually transcend stereotypes?  I'm sure some would see this as an outwardly butch Hillary or an overly androgynous one (suggesting a woman can't be tough without trying to blow up the boys club).  And then just to confound things a little more, could those three little warts below her left eye, matched with the additional three more below the left edge of her lips, (still) signify tears?  Bu then again, given the strong reference to Chucky, couldn't the image just as well reprise the Samantha Powers reference to Hillary as a monster?

And then... and then....

Your thoughts?

Bruise Brother (Village Voice)
Samantha Power Thinks Hillary Clinton Is a Problem From Hell (NY Mag)

(h/t: Leo.  illustration: Alex Ostroy for The Village Voice.  April 1, 2008.  villagevoice.com)

Betray Us II

This handy image was floating around the newswire this AM, showing McNasty last September going off about the MoveOn General Betray Us ad.  Wearing his NAVY hat against the stars-and-stripes while clutching tight to his cue cards, McCain used the piece of paper as a simple, black-and-white example of sedition.

Let's look, again, at this image-within-an-image which the Repubs threw back at the ad's title.  It shows Petraeus in the halls of Congress, occupying the same background we've come to associate with high elected representatives.  In it, Petraeus is framed as an authoritative spokesman for the government, a warrior who has conquered that body with his words, and by the symbolism and authority of his uniform, has overwhelmed the Capitol.
Forget for a moment that Petraeus and the Administration have undermined the Pentagon's chain-of-command and implemented its own insurgent force within the Pentagon.  The inset image demonstrates that, by way of the executive and media authority vested in the General, Petraeus -- the political foot solider for the White House -- ultimately trumps the Congress (hearings, or no hearings) when it comes to the occupation.

There's another element to this image, however, that hold even stronger bearing on today's hearing.  With McCain, Clinton and Obama scheduled to question Petraeus, look how McCain, microphone in hand (and beyond the distraction of the MoveOn move), holds up the general as his own prop.  If you take a look at this morning's NYT image showing McCain and his strategists hatching strategy around today's testimony, it's easier to see how much the hearing represents more political theatre than anything else, with all three presidential contenders -- scoring points here, but taking tactical caution not to go too far over there -- are using Petraeus for their ends, as much as Petraeus is using Congress for his.

4:15 PM EST/Update: Case in point... with pretty picture of BHO: Iraq Hearings Rife With Political Overtones

(image: Brett Flashnick/AP.  September 15, 2007.  Florence, S.C.  via YahooNews)

General Love

I was wondering how long it was going to take before Frank Rich returned from "vanquishing Hillary land."  His piece Saturday was spot-on, outlining the invisible disaster formerly known as the Iraq War.  In light of his narrative, I find yesterday's NYT WIR story previewing General Petraeus's testimony to Congress this week as simply mind-blowing.

Having enabled the ethnic cleansing of a country; pacified warring Sunni tribes through flat-out bribery (with no resulting structural change and no end in sight); and then having claimed credit for a (only fractionally successful) so-called surge leveraged on the back of al-Sadr's cease-fire, here was the NYT yesterday effectively promoting the General as a potential vice-presidential or even presidential candidate!  (And not only that, but the article actually cites "loathsome buzz" from liberal bloggers as escalating the wave!)

In an admittedly brilliant accompanying slide show, The Times produces a series of photos of military rock-stars through modern U.S. history captured at their telegenic best.  (The MacArthur shot is priceless, nailing the incestuous relationship between war biz and show biz.)

But it's this Petraeus shot, paired with the article, which concerns me.  Like the other photos, it equates the camera's love with presidential worthiness.  But, what happened to the irony?  On the threshold of a critical appearance before Congress, following the near Shiite meltdown of Babel two weeks ago, it's apparently 2003 all over again.

Setting the table for an accounting, I look at this grand entrance and all I see is fawning.

Tet Happened, and No One Cared (Frank Rich/NYT)
Generally Speaking (NYT Week In Review)
Political Generals (NYT slide show)
The Petraeus Insurgency (BAGnewsNotes)

(Jim Young/Reuters.  Washington. September 2007. nytimes.com)