viz.
Rhetoric - Visual Culture - Pedagogy
Tags
advertisement
advertising
architecture
art
assignment
Barack Obama
Comics
design
fashion
film
Hillary Clinton
Humor
In-class Exercise
information design
Iraq
Maps
news
Pedagogy
pedagogy examples
photography
photography
photography
Political Propaganda
politics
Propaganda
video
visual art
Visual Rhetoric
Writing Exercise
youtube
DisclaimerThese blog entries represent the views of their authors, not necessarily those of the CWRL, the University of Texas at Austin, or any of its affiliated entities. |
Michelle Obama’s halo
Submitted by John Jones on Wed, 2008-02-13 20:30
Timothy Noah at Slate has been keeping an eye out for evidence that Barack Obama is, in fact, the Son of God. In his latest post, he linked to this picture of Michelle Obama from Reuters:
According to Noah, the framing and Obama’s posture suggest a passing resemblance to this woman:
Despite how Ms. Obama photographs, according to Noah, she keeps her husband down to earth.
|
Recent comments
|
Comments
I don't get it
Noah at Slate draws a parallel between the Virgin Mary and Michelle Obama? So, Barack "Jesus Christ" Obama is in an incestuous relationship with his virgin mother? I smell fallacy.
Fallacies
Melanie,
Though I suspect your comment is a bit tongue-in-cheek, I think Noah is pointing out that some members of the media have had a tendency to depict Obama in a somewhat saintly light, not trying to build a coherent theology around the man.
Here’s my question: has anyone taken any similar photos of Clinton?
That photograph is so
That photograph is so remarkable. I don't think they could have done a better job than if they'd staged it. Everything is so perfect...even down to the weirdly draped sleeves of her clothing (OK, otherwise they wouldn't seem weird, but this context makes them seem funny!). It may seem unfair or fallacious, but surely the person who snapped this photo was aware of its fortuitous iconographic potential. Whether this is evidence of support or detraction is more debatable.
It's also interesting to think about in terms of gender. The parallel with the Virgin Mary goes beyond the Halo: there is also the way her hands are clasped, the way her face is tilted, the look on her face. She does look like she is waiting for something to come--something from above, as indicated by her upturned face. To me it plays into a narrative about Michelle Obama exemplified in this recent NYT article about what an asset she has been on the campaign trail--and for "asset" read "supportive wife." The article is about how she is very helpful and persuasive, but also about how she retains her individuality and doesn't always tow the party line (witness her recent reluctance so say straight up whether she would support Clinton in the general).
Oh, to be the wife of a candidate: this photograph may be an extreme example, but nonetheless there is a role waiting for her, and everyone is anxious to know whether she will play along. (The red garment she is wearing has something to do with this: click here for a series of posts about first ladies and the color red).
(And to answer John's question about Hillary: absolutely not. In fact, I suspect the photogs are looking for the opposite; witness the dustup about a very unflattering photo of her recently prominently displayed on the Drudge report. That photo, too, had everything to do with gender.)
Virgin Mothers
You don't think crying Hillary is a bit of a "Pietas"?
And while the wrinkled photograph on the Drudge report resulted in disparaging reports it also solicited and received feelings of care and pity (the subtitle was "The toll of the road"). Even Rush Limbaugh - RUSH LIMBAUGH - ran a segment talking about how this just shows women are judged on unfair standards. And Rush - yes, RUSH! - provided the following insightful commentary: that the president is a hold a physically ravaging position (any comparison between inauguration and farewell demonstrate the physical changes) and yet at the same time is an aggressively public figure. The Clinton photograph, Rush suggests, indicates that what we are all afraid of is seeing a woman grow old and haggard before our eyes.
I think it is interesting to consider the BUMP she received from the media documenting her as a "suffering" figure. And don't forget the media support she received as the "angry mother" after MSNBC's comments about Chelsea. All of this, along with her electability rhetoric of suffering and endurance (she has withstood the attacks!) shows that even the Clinton campaign is tinted by hagiography.
Jillian: "Tinted" by
Jillian: "Tinted" by hagiography her campaign certainly may be, but that's got more to do with fact that the Clintons have sometimes attempted to present it as such. As far as I have been able to tell, most of the media attention has focused on her insincerity (all her tears MUST be crocodile tears), her bad mothering skills (no one ever accused Mitt of pimping out his 5 sons on their "5 brothers tour"), her poor relations with her husband (read any column ever written by Maureen Dowd). No matter what she does, everything is read through the lens of her insincerity. If you want to invoke the virgin/whore dichotomy, in my mind there's no question into which of those categories most media attention places her. You can argue it is her fault, but I don't see how you can argue it isn't true. And Noah's point in his feature on Slate is that the media is looking everywhere for signs and portents of our impending Barackdemption; what I'm saying is that while Obama almost always seem to get the benefit of the doubt, Hillary almost never does (a classic example, in my opinion, of the split between a hermeneutic of generosity and a hermeneutic of skepticism).
And as for Rush (a transcript of his comments is available here), well...give me a break. If that's sympathy I'll eat my proverbial hat. Here is the question as he formulates it:
Two things at work in his argument: 1) Americans don't want to watch a woman age, but it's OK to watch a man age because "men aging makes them look more authoritative, accomplished, distinguished" and 2) Aging is worse for female figures BECAUSE they are intrinsically more concerned about their appearance.
John McCain is 72 years old. His age is a legitimate topic to discuss because of presidential succession issues. But no one is saying he's out of this thing because he looks old (which he does; have you seen his jowls?). How you can see this as anything other than gender bias is beyond me. And Rush's argument is implicitly an argument that an older woman can never be President. What makes it more nefarious is that he tries to pass it off as not his own claim, but the culture's at large--as cultural critique (transference, anyone?). I'm not buying it. Especially given the last sentence of that transcript: "The campaign is Mitt Romney versus Hillary Clinton in our quest in this country for visual perfection, hmm?" Rush supported Romney until he dropped out. Romney, the supposed pretty boy. If everyone is so shallow, why didn't they choose him over McCain?
Rush's rhetoric
I never claimed Limbaugh sympathy, Tim. But he chooses to frame the discussion of looks as something that has been done to women and therefore re-place the victim at the heart of Hillary-gate:
“There is this thing in this country that, as you age -- and this is particularly, you know, women are hardest hit on this, and particularly in Hollywood -- America loses interest in you…It's like almost an addiction that some people have to what I call the perfection that Hollywood presents of successful, beautiful, fun-loving people."
(my emphasis)
And while the mainstream media might be lodging charges of insincerity at the Clintons, the voters that swung support to her after the tears were not. Hell, even some of those media monger weren't - look at Rachel Larimore in Slate who said: "I've never cared for her personality or her politics, but as a woman, I'm sympathetic." Of course, her statement (like that of Limbaugh) depends on the identification of women as superficial as it is the 'hey, as a woman, I don't like bad pictures taken either!'
I think we are oversimplifying the discussion into virgin/whore (as the entire virgin/whore dichotomy does to women as a whole). I am arguing that the mother they find in Clinton is the suffering Mary of later life, while Obama is the young, blessed virgin of the annunciation.
And wait - men aren't old? Two words: Bob Dole. Criticism of his campaign circled almost completely around the claim of his being too old for president. And John McCain? Remember the speculation about his facelift? And now that he's a serious contender, the talk has swung to his age and possible deterioration (some argue that he brings his own mother - and with that word we return to the hear of the issue, I think - along on the campaign to make himself seem younger). To return to the idea of motherhood: of course I'm not saying this is not about gender, I'm saying the Obama thing is about gender too! Mothers, even holy ones, are women. Unless, of course, you can somehow get Barack a miraculous birth to complete his campaign.
Hmmm...I guess I'm not quite
Hmmm...I guess I'm not quite sure what you're saying, then. I do agree with you on this point: mothers are women! (Snark!) Is the difference (and our disagreement, if there is a disagreement) centering on the fact that while we both think it's about gender, we think it's about gender in different directions/for different reasons? Are you saying that the gender conversation is good for Obama and bad for Clinton (to be *very* reductive about it, again).
I think what I wanted to point out was the fact that you do seem to be saying that Rush "frame[s] the discussion as something that has been done to women" as if in the very act his utterance is not also something he himself is doing to women, by arguing that aging women cannot appear "authoritative" in the way that men do. (And I think it's interesting that authoritative is the first word he reaches for there.) I want to point out that (in my opinion) the way he frames the argument is disingenuous. To me it's a version of that staple of Fox News and the way people on that network preface so many statements with the phrase, "Some people say...," which enables one to make the argument while ostensibly distancing oneself from it. He's not just "framing" her as the victim of misogyny; she is the victim of his misogyny.
And I didn't say men aren't old. But even your discussion of this point makes clear that when we talk about men aging, we don't talk about looks but capability--which is presumably how it should be. When we talk about women aging we talk about the aging body, declining looks, etc. When we talk about men aging we talk about declining intellectual capacity, decreased energy, etc. In other words, when we talk about aging we talk about the things our gender bias already predisposes us to see.
(I always worry that responding to a response comment seems defensive; I blame the medium. I don't feel "defensive," but I do want to "defend" my arguments.)
gold standard of presidential wrinkles
Yeah...I went off on Rush,
Yeah...I went off on Rush, which was clearly ancillary to the claim you were actually making. Apologies! His comments remind me of this funny thing I read yesterday in a letter someone sent to the NYT about Maureen Dowd's most recent column: "It's classic misogyny disguised as something else: sure, a woman, but not this one. Or that one. No, not that one either."
And yeah, I clearly need to get to work on a little thing called my DISSERTATION! I can't help it though; politics is like a year long Final Four to me.
roles for women
A similar (OK, vaguely in the same direction) discussion today on Slate's XX blog (for those not familiar with XX, it's a blog on which women who work for/write for slate.com discuss politics and other issues; it has included several discussions about the role of gender in the current campaign):
It's not clear to me exactly what Lithwick is saying about why this is not happening to Barack Obama (because he's new or young? because the media beatifies him?). But I do wonder if there is something about the typecasting itself that is explicitly gendered? (I mean, the forms of typecasting Lithwick points too are obviously, explicitly gendered; I mean the willingness, or tendency, to rely on these cliches to explain Clinton?) Does this happen with males? (The only analogue I can think of is the cowboy myth.)
And, as I speculated about earlier, the role Michelle Obama is expected to play is also narrowing. Witness the (predictable) controversy surrounding her recent remarks on pride:
OK, I realize not everything is about gender; if a man had said this, it would have, just as predictably, manufactured some outrage in certain circles. But according even to one of the bloggers at XX, Emily Yoffe, "the first job of a spouse on the campaign trail is: Don't embarrass the candidate. How much damage a spouse can do is evident by the work of Bill Clinton."
Guilty
Yes, my comment was tongue in cheek. And while I don't disagree with the blatant framing of that photograph (I can't help but wonder whether Michelle Obama was complicit, or at least posing), I do find fault with Noah's argument, mainly because at least one of the articles he cites is actually performing a rhetorical analysis of the Men's Vogue layout and coming to the same conclusion as Noah. His argument would hold more water if he'd linked directly to images from the Men's Vogue spread than a critical analysis of said spread.
Candidate’s wives
Tim,
Great comment. It reminded me of this interview on Fresh Air with Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Connie Schultz—who married Ohio congressman Sherrod Brown—on her book . . . and His Lovely Wife: A Memoir from the Woman Beside the Man. In the interview, Schultz makes a really compelling argument for the wives of politicians to cast off the “supportive wife” role and have opinions and ideas of their own.