#10 The wrap up

So here we are at the end of our cartoon and theology blogs.

I know this time around I focused a lot on cartoon stuff, but I find it to be relevant and interesting, often amusing. I think the effort that goes into cartoon online, in newspapers etc is underrated- they usually have a very deep message behind cleverly scribbled characters. Having said that, I would definitely like to sooner or later start looking at different means and methods of modern art and its relation to Theology too, and I hope you'll join me on that as well.

I hope you've managed to maybe have a giggle here and there, and learn a thing or two, or at least that some things have sounded so ludicrous you just HAD to go and research, surely I can expect that at least?! but if not, there's always next time.

Thanks for all your interesting comments and stuff by the way! <3

I would end this blog with a final awesome picture but I think you guys have had enough of those, so instead you can have a little video to restore your faith in humanity

#09 Graffiti - like cartoon, but not.

I have explored creative expression on paper, online and on cardboard but now we've come to the greatest canvas of all- the world. Cheesy, I know but I think of them all, graffiti can often be the most vibrant and expressive of all modern art expressions of religion. I'm not condoning vandalism of course, and occasionally you see clumsily written things where people have thought it would be clever and 'cool' to write their name on a wall in spray paint... like, really?

Anyway religion can sometimes be frustrating both for insiders and outsiders of it. Whether that be because of the rest of the world, whether it be religiously political, or even just an inner struggle. It is fair to say that graffiti (like most art) can definitely be a silent and calming output or a place to express their views loudly and brightly.

Following on from Blog #08, there is a very relevant issue.
In Palestine, there is a controversial wall put up by Israel separating the territories. According to 'Against the Wall: The Art of Resistance in Palestine', it basically makes Palestinians 'refugees in their own land'. The wall is there to essentially not allow Palestinians to flourish or prosper in any way- economically or spiritually without any access to the relevant spaces. Palestinian land owners even have to apply for 'visitor permits' to access their own lands. It is for this reason that William Parry accuses them of using it as a method for 'ethnic cleansing'. There are many among the Jewish religious community who oppose this Zionism on a religious basis claiming it completely contradicts any ethical religious traditions... personally, I do not think any religion would ever advocate this behaviour either, and if it did it would not have any moral standards worth adhering to.

Here are some examples of this expression on the wall:

 

This ones needs no explanation (pardon pun)...  literally simply an expression of religious belief through graffiti

                                                     'For those who believe in 
                                                     ''God'' no explanation is necessary, 
                                                     for those who don't...
                                                     no explanation is possible'

...As is (but a tad less sophisticatedly so)

... And it's not always deep, sometimes its just a positive friendly message to brighten up an empty space

(QOTD: In an increasingly secular society, do you think it'll be less acceptable/accepted to have religious graffiti such as above? Should messages in public spaces always be applicable to everyone? )

Its also not always from the major religions... Sometimes its just about spirituality that can apply to everyone.

'An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind'

or 

'No Struggle... No Progress'

'Value life More than Money'

.... And who said you can only graffiti one religion or spirituality at a time?

Ahhh... uplifting. Of course there are negative examples of graffiti as well- but that is what comes with freedom of expression always I suppose. Let me know what you think of the QOTD though. I find it very enlightening to see such outward expressions of inner thoughts and examples like my examples show how graffiti can bring a community together or divide it, question an authority or give moral advice by the simple act of cleverly painting a wall.

#08 Conflict-in' pictures

'Religious' war and modern art (of the cartoon kind)

Arguably the main 'religious' conflict is the Israel-Palestine one. Even with this, when it comes down to it, the Israel-Palestine conflict is not actually religiously based at all, it is more to do with history and international laws of land ownership etc. One of the reasons it has been turned into this is, in my opinion, because the two parties in question both have a religion that is the majority, and thus the world turns it into Jewish people vs Muslims, rather than Jews vs Palestines. This is further shown through the fact that I have noticed such pictures as below as endorsed and applied (e.g on facebook) by predominantly Muslims when regarding Palestine... often stating their 'solidarity with their brothers and sisters' in a Religious sense, and vice versa I'm sure although I have not often seen this from the Israel side.

E.g.

VS

or 

And there are many many more examples. Clearly, again if they are coming from both sides they both consider it to be an effective method and it is a communication of sorts, but with whom?
Is this propaganda? Or is it the nature of these that they're extremely inclusive? I know I personally have noticed that it is on Pro-Gaza/Palestine or Pro-Israel pages or groups on facey-b that display these. Or people furthering the cause of one or the other... in which case it is people who already believed in the cause that like or comment the pictures giving support.
-Do you think these almost comical controversial cartoons would ever alone, or with help, ever sway anyone's opinion?
-What is actually the aim?
-How do you see them?

As this is a (sort of) religious conflict, there are often factors that are depicted to emphasise the different religious sides. For example, in the second picture, the man in the spotlight is clearly meant to be Jewish in a very caricatured way (correct me if I'm wrong) and thats even with a sign next to the bodies saying 'Gaza'.

-In this sense, does it make religion look bad? as they are mocking one another and both sides are made to look bad...
-or Does it make religion look good? as they are not being violent or extremists but in fact calmly and rationally expressing their feelings through picture.

Another thing is, as shown in one of the examples above, there are often graphical images of dead people to prove a point... how do you feel about these? Do you think they're disturbing? Desensitising even? or again... are they JUST cartoons? 

Lots of QOTDs for you today- just pick whatever you find interesting and go with it ;)

#07 Edward Said that cartoons matter

This blog is going to be about orientalism and the depiction through the art of cartoon (yet again I know! What can I say, I like cartoons. And yes they do count as art -_-)  the perception of the enemy as Jewish transitioning to the enemy as a Muslim... and stuff.

The main place I got this idea from was in a University module where we all had to do presentations on Edward Said.

Here's a rundown of what Edward Said said. Said.                                                                                          In his book 'Orientalism' he defines the title as

"a constellation of false assumptions underlying Western attitudes toward the Middle East. This body of scholarship is marked by a 'subtly and persistent Eurocentric prejudice against Arabo-Islamic peoples and their culture"

Now this might not sound particularly interesting yet, and the book is clearly not written to amuse, buttt one of his ways in which he tries to justify his view in the contemporary age IS. Basically, Ed essentially tries to highlight the way Muslims (or Arabs, of whom many were Muslim) are stereotyped and therefore represented and for what reasons (e.g wars).

Now here's where it gets good for us. Ed-Said writes (best bits in bold):

"Yet after 1973 the Arab appeared everywhere as something more menacing. Cartoons depicting Arab Sheikhs standing behind a gasoline pump turned up consistently. These Arabs, however, were clearly "Semitic"; their sharply hooked noses, the evil moustachioed leer on their faces were obvious reminders (to a largely non-Semitic population) that "Semites" were at the bottom of all "our" troubles... The transference of a popular anti-Semitic animus from a Jewish to an Arab target was made smoothly, since the figure was essentially the same" (286).

He then goes on to explain other ways in which in his view, this racism of sorts, displays itself. We're going to focus on this wee bit about 'animus' though.
So about 10 secs after I wrote the above, I Google imaged "cartoon Semitic" and a lot of disturbing creepy anti-semitic etc things came up.

To illustrate the above point a little though, check this out:

Now I don't understand what that says, but clearly this is an anti-semitic cartoon as he (left) has blood on his hand and is shown in a bad light. HOWEVER

Sharply hooked nose? Check
Evil moustachioed leer? Check

This is obviously a caricature, but that's Eddy's point, that Jewish/Israeli people were characterised like that, as a wicked person with these stereotypical qualities. However, the second half of his point is that this stereotype was transferred to Muslims to then make THEM the wicked ones. Is there any truth to this though?

I don't know about you but THIS lovable rogue is who I thought of when I was thinking about that check-list

Yup, that's right. The evil Wizard in Aladdin.
So OK fair enough although it is known by many as traditionally an 'Arab folk tale' maybe the actual story has no NECESSARY links to Arabia and it was translated a lot and all over, but this is about REPRESENTATIONS. This is a representation by DISNEY of this character of whom they interpreted.

Right so here's the way I see it.
Hooked nose? Yes
Moustachioed Leer? yes
Guy liner and Scouse brow? for some reason yes, but not relevant.

He is clearly wearing a Turban also: Common of Arabs/Muslims in places as far as I know (and other religions and cultures) but not so of Jews.

And here's the clincher:
When Disney's Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio rewrote the screenplay, they "changed the setting from China, to a fictional Arabian city, Agrabah". 

So from my deductions (correct me if you disagree), the evil wizard in Aladdin is supposed to be an Arab, and he has all of the facial features associated with the evil cartoon Semite figure of the old days (according to Ed-Said anyway). We won't get bogged down by conspiracy theorising, and clearly neither Jewish nor Arab people should be portrayed as the bad guy, but this is simply to point out, as Ed does, the natural transition of evil guy from Semite (Jew) to Arab (Muslim), so easily.

What would be the significance of making the evil character Muslim (or even Jewish)? Does that make a character 'creepier'? 

-In this way, does anyone think this is a sort of brainwashing or conditioning, as it is a children's film? 

-Does Religion actually have anything to do with it, or is it simply the culture? Is it racism of some sort? 

#06 Dem-marks be controversial.

The one all (two) of you have been waiting for!
The one about the Danish Cartoon row. This one's a follow on from the blog before- don't want to lose your attention with too much all at once do we ;)
QOTD towards the end this time- just to keep you on your toes.

Note: These were not the only provocative to religion comics, over the years there has certainly been a rise in cheeky to mocking to offensive comics regarding various religions in Newspapers.

Below though, is a rather a crude video from Youtube which contains the actual comics in question and the response of some Muslims in (conveniently) comic form:

 The first thing that comes to mind (and did at the time) was 'they're just cartoons though?' but the huge riots and protests that occurred shows just how much emphasis can be put on 'just' a cartoon, and the significance it can have. I think part of this is within the fact that a cartoon has to be 'made' specifically, so if it's a cartoon that is offensive and hateful; it was purposeful rather than a more subtle approach. Most sane people (incl Muslims) believe the response above was OTT and counter-productive, however....
QOTD: Do you think though that a cartoon portrayal of a view should be given as much significance? Or any at all? 
Does it being a cartoon make it any less offensive just because its in the name of humour?

A different perspective to think about...

....which to me kind of shows how comics can be/are used as a form of universal back and forth dialogue. In this way it kind of unites as well as divides in a strange sense. That must sound weird considering the above but the way I see it, something like poetry is a universal form of expression- sure in poetry someone can be racist and hurtful and there can be similar stuff back at them, but there is still a unity of expression there. Maybe it's the same for all creative forms of expression? Or maybe I'm just being weird. But clearly if both (or all) sides are using it, there is at least significance placed on them as ways of getting an opinion across. What say you?

Oh and I gotta put this in there because I've been thinking of it since I first Googled 'Danish....'

Mmmm. They may not always get it right with their cartoons, but they don't play when it comes to Danish swirls. Now those I'd riot for.

#05 Extra! Extra! Blog all about it!

This one's going to be about religion related comics in Newspapers. 

QOTD:

Does the fact that something is cartoon/comic allow it to get away with more?

Is this (and if so, why is it) a bad thing?

Do cartoon/fictional depictions in any way desensitise people to what's offensive in the real world?

We had a guest lecturer at uni last year who talked to us about the rise of Islamophobia. As part of this, he discussed ways in which the rise is evident amongst the general public and one of these was through the 'funny' little comics in general newspapers. These started off innocent enough, but he showed how people got braver with their 'prejudice' and how that was shown in this way- people seemed to be more ok with poking fun at Muslims. Having said that, this has been happening with Christianity for many years, however it is assumed to be much less controversial to poke fun at Christianity, presumably because Christianity is larger and more prominent so it is perhaps assumed to be immune.

Here is a great little article on the history of Christianity related comics in the papers. 

Some are gentle fun and I'd say relatively harmless, such as:

 Or:

These, I feel, are the mild amusing comics that can be giggled at by religious and non religious people alike. Both parody religion a little but not in any obviously provocative way. The other thing is, that neither of these focus on one religion, which I feel makes them that bit friendlier and could not be accused of 'attacking' any religion in particular.

Some, though are not nec supposed to be offensive but although are cartoons seem to be trying to get a genuine religio-political (I think I just made that up) message across like

which is based on real events and includes charicatures of the real people involved. This is what keeps it current rather than what comics usually do, which is create characters to represent real figures.

However, some comics are downright Danish... and not taken so lightly. You can read about that on the next blog! (Shameless plugging going on here)

#04 Sign Language

Following on from the last blog...

QOTD: Do cartoons/comics/fictional depictions get a message across better?

This blog is going to be about the use of placards during protests, the ones with references to/from religion. Protests are generally pretty serious things, and because of this the props, such as placards used, need to be well made and effective at getting a particular message across.

Most of the time protests are to achieve, or get something. For instance:

Onto serious things though. For instance; here's one that's a little strange but makes you think

Equally dodgy territories to manoeuvre- Religion and Politics and this placard crashes into them both. There is a lot of information in just this one picture that we can probably deduce. Even simply this persons knowledge of the historical person of Jesus being 'brown', and the cartoon picture showing him as such, rather than going along with traditional Western depictions of him as white tell us something about them. I would assume this poster was also anti-Obama, since it appears to be suggesting Obama is promising more than he can deliver or is capable of. I mean clearly including the boldly coloured cartoon picture was to draw people's attention- probably namely religious ones here.What do you think?

As you could probably guess, religion related cartoon involving protest signs are quite a niche wee search... and you would be right. Like here's one that would be great....

...if I had but any idea what you meant grumpy man with glasses. 

Oh 'ang about! A little further reading tells me this was made in protest of the indian government for the imprisonment of a man called Anna for standing up to the government. The comic now clearly makes sense, on the part of these people it is suggesting that in a civilised society all are calm and peaceful and democratic while others have their opinions and only in an uncivilised one do authorities react in such a way. This is not necessarily religion based but shows exactly what I mean about the effectiveness of cartoon. 

However, this protest sign is MUCH more relevant. Here the 'modern art' is in the entire picture, in her clear strength and what she is symbolising by (it seems) being naked, and even the monochrome effect put on the photography, and of course the theological aspect is more than evident. 

As it is in: 

Appears this method is popular amongst feminists... although they might argue that that's because they have so much to protest to regarding religion... but I'll leave that with you to think about. 

However, overall it seems that clearly religious people are generally more likely to protest ABOUT cartoons (see next blog ;) ) than by using them.

Still let me know what you think about this and the QOTD! :-)