Josh Atkinson - Context of Practice - Final Essay

Josh Atkinson – Context of Practice – Level 4 -­‐ OUIL401 – Studio Brief 1

Josh Atkinson

Context of Practice Level 4 OUIL 401 Studio Brief 1 Words – 2,927

Josh Atkinson – Context of Practice – Level 4 -­‐ OUIL401 – Studio Brief 1

Discuss the role that Illustration can play during periods of political and / or social upheaval

-­‐ To what extent have British political caricatures within Illustration affected those in power throughout history and in contemporary times?

In this essay I aim to put forward the discussion of how important British caricatures, in particular political ones have been throughout history and in relation to the recent times that they have been used as well. I aim to explore what kind of impact caricatures and satirical images of that nature have had on the public as well as the impact they have had on politicians and whether an image of themselves depicted in a satirical way has had a detrimental impact or effect on their campaigns / political pursuits. However, this will not be explicitly about events or depictions in just Britain as the caricaturists are social commentators of the time therefore there is events outside of the United Kingdom that will be explored.

Another key factor to explore is the roll of the digital age and how the internet in particular has had a role in the way that images such as political caricatures are circulated and how that can have an effect socially. As well as the distribution of newspapers, a platform in which caricatures have been used prolifically through such publications as ‘private eye’ and the ‘Sunday times’. Satirists that will be explored will be 17th and 18th Century illustrators such as William Hogarth and James Gillray up to present day practitioners such as Gerald Scarfe and Martin Rowson.

The caricature has a long deep seated heritage and does not originally derive from the art of drawings. The caricature emerged from Satire which was first evidenced through plays namely the plays of ancient Greece. At the time, the word Satire was not recognised but through the works of such playwrights as Aristophanes the very idea of satire was certainly the most important aspect within the plays. The focus of satire within the plays was to in essence do exactly what the modern use of caricature does in todays terms and indeed what it has done in the past few centuries. Through the use of social commentary and ultimately showing the common mans disparity at the social stature of the elite Aristophanes was highlighting the plight that the lower class people had to deal with and was the first sign of the working class rallying together against the hierarchy of the time. As the idea of satire became more recognised it began to branch out and became a thoroughly popular genre as more plays were written and there was a greater amount of satirical literature which was also a staple of that genre. While 16th Century painters such as Pieter Bruegel and Hieronymus Bosch might have adopted a fairly comical style of painting it was not until the 17th Century and through British practitioners such as William Hogarth and Thomas Rowlandson and later on James Gillray that the caricature was fully recognised especially as a comic art form. Just as it is the intention today the caricature was to purely hit back at and to attack those in power whether it be through exaggeration of the targets facial features for example or through a comment on what political events were taking place at the time.

Josh Atkinson – Context of Practice – Level 4 -­‐ OUIL401 – Studio Brief 1 Caricatures have always had an integral role within illustration and the use of illustrative satire particularly politically has been very common throughout history and right through to present day. In historical terms the pioneers known as the father and grandfather of the political cartoon were as previously mentioned James Gillray and William Hogarth retrospectively. These men without doubt set the trend for political satire within illustration which then has expanded from Great Britain to throughout the rest of the world.

In the book ‘Lines of Attack, Conflicts in Caricature’ edited by Neil McWilliam it discusses about how the print scene had begun where satirical political illustrations were engraved and were ‘published as independent artworks and sold by a growing network of London – based print sellers’ and goes on to say that these ‘emerged as an increasingly sophisticated and influential channel for political commentary and critique’(McWilliam 2010:2). This was the beginning of how the lower classed people could have a say on what was going on because of these comical depictions within the hierarchy of the time. In the words of contemporary political cartoonist Martin Rowson “We (meaning the cartoonists) like to take the piss out of people that are better than us, we do it instinctively. Satire exists everywhere and depending on the nature of the elite who are seeking to govern us it thrives or it doesn’t thrive depending on how far they tolerate it. The less they tolerate it the more it thrives as it goes underground and becomes part of the folk culture.” Thus meaning in terms of the times of the 17th or 18th Century (when it was the period of Hogarth or Gillray) that once the people gained an understanding of what was going on politically they had that needed insight to spark a protest and ultimately to rally the masses.

To quote Rowson again, he says “The love of the caricature goes very deep in terms of how it is instilled within us and the fact of how we have a capacity for laughter particularly at those who appear to demean us with their higher status of power and what they hold over us.”

So that covers the aspect of how the art of the caricature can have an impact on the masses and the people who are of a political following, particularly with phrases such as ‘caricatures are assassinations without the blood’ but how has it impacted on the politicians themselves?

The golden age of the British caricature has been cited as being from 1760 – 1830 and the main figure of this age was James Gillray. One image in particular that sparked a response from the victim of the caricature was the French leader of the time Napoleon Bonaparte.

This work of Gillray titled ‘Little Boney in a strong fit’ or ‘Maniac/manic ravings’ depicts exactly as the title suggests. A man who has gone to the brink and is quite simply losing it.

To reiterate the original point this image provoked the response from Napoleon which is quoted as “James Gillray did more than all the armies in Europe to bring me down”. This is a pretty telling statement to make which suggests how much of an impact that this particular caricature made. Thus demonstrating the point of how powerful the act of a caricaturist can be to its target and that it can actually make a man who has fought in the great wars and battles that he is so iconic for, to speak out as to how this image had done more damage to him from a pride point of view more than anything else.

Josh Atkinson – Context of Practice – Level 4 -­‐ OUIL401 – Studio Brief 1

This is very typical of the time particularly when analysing the visual signature of the illustration. Typical characteristics of a caricature of the time include the use of hatching and a large use of tone to create shadows and form to the images however the most important aspect as ever with a caricature is the emphasis on the facial expression. This expression in particular is the total dismay of Napoleon conveying how lost he was. “The purpose of satire is to tear aside the fine reignments and ceremonial clothing of the elite to show they are sweating stinking shitting pissing people just like us” This is another quote taken from a lecture video of Martin Rowson which again defines what the motive for a caricaturist has and always will be as a visual statement against the order of the time politically. Another quote to back that up from editorial cartoonist Pat Oliphant is that “the job a cartoonist is to be against the government, whatever it is.”

The same can be said for the recent political cartoons and how they can have an impact on their targets of the time. However as is the case with most things different politicians have different personalities and therefore a multitude of tolerances towards the depictions of themselves. Christian Adams a political cartoonist for the daily telegraph said the following about that same matter “Do the politicians care? Absolutely. Matthew Parris says that Margaret Thatcher’s PR people, colleagues and even her family were instructed not to show her any disrespectful cartoons. John Major, meanwhile, was famously thin-­‐skinned about cartoons; less well-­‐known is that Tony Blair – no stranger to vanity – was most upset by being drawn with a receding hair line.”

The most prolific and renound British caricaturist of recent times is Gerald Scarfe who through a long career whilst working with the big publications such as private eye and the Sunday Times has practiced the art of Political caricatures and perhaps most famously has depicted Margaret Thatcher as one of his subjects. Scarfe depicted Thatcher in a variety of

Josh Atkinson – Context of Practice – Level 4 -­‐ OUIL401 – Studio Brief 1 ways and would use the technique of anthropomorphizing where she could be turned into an object such as an axe or even as a shark. This image by Scarfe demonstrates exactly what he was trying to say about the Labour leader, the fact of how he felt she was a strong cutting and aggressive woman which is best represented through the way he portrayed her facially and such iconic features as the razor sharp teeth and nose to reflect her ‘fearsome’ and ‘sharp’ personality. This image in contrast to the Gillray example is much more grotesque in its visual tone which reflects Scarfes work and how a caricature is differently perceived in contemporary terms. It is clearly not a representational kind of illustration like the early Gillray works yet it is still a comment from the mind of the artist and how they feel about the victim that they are essentially attacking through their work. In an interview Scarfe was quoted in saying the following which once again demonstrates the primal need for the political caricature “Our leaders should always be questioned, they are very arrogant people who set themselves up to say they know the way they should go…and that’s really been the traditional role of the caricaturist over the ages since Hogarth. To be able to criticize and look at those in power and call them to account in drawings”.

However, it is worth arguing that the caricature of today is not feared by politicians anywhere near as much as at the time of Hogarth and Gillray and this was mainly because of the absence of technology. As Robert Joseph Goldstein of Oakland University explains “in this age before television, radio, and cinema, caricatures were especially feared by the ruling orders as potentially critical and threatening.” In Britain there was no act of censorship against caricatures either which helped the art from thrive.

Josh Atkinson – Context of Practice – Level 4 -­‐ OUIL401 – Studio Brief 1 Again from Goldstein “Political caricatures were viewed as especially dangerous because their impact was seen as greater and more immediate than that of the printed word and because, while large segments of the especially feared "dark masses" were illiterate and thus not susceptible to, subversive words, anyone could understand the meaning of a drawing.” It was a platform that the politicians could not hide from or indeed could not hide from the public due to there being no censorship much unlike the rest of mainland Europe in countries such as France where censorship had indeed been put in place.

Small attempts were known to be made by leaders such as Robert Walpole who was Great Britain’s first prime minister. After a series of satirical cartoons were produced of him, particularly by the grandfather of the political caricature William Hogarth. Walpole was known to send out men to find and arrest the print sellers overnight hoping that there would be some sort of positive response in his favour, however this turned out to be a feeble attempt on his part to enforce something onto the satirists but it didn’t work.

The art form thrived so much that by the mid 19th Century the publication of ‘Punch Magazine’ was born, in 1841 to be exact. This was a massively integral piece to the history of the British cartoon and has shaped what we have become familiar with today. David Thomas the editor from 1989-­‐1992 of the magazine was quoted saying ‘"When it comes to the art of the cartoon, no magazine in the world has a finer record than Punch.”

The point to this being that socially the British Caricature had not lost its popularity and that the people of the time were still captivated by the art form still thanks to there not being any television or other media platforms to keep the public masses entertained. As well as the fact that they were still keeping their ear to the ground politically as there has and always will be that fascination between the voters and the candidates.

However, is the present day Caricature and political cartoon under threat? “…at a moment when printed news sources, which have traditionally carried such political cartoons, are faced with unprecedented competition from a vast panoply of electronic media.”

(McWilliam 2010: 7 – foreword). Well it is widely recognised that the caricature is still a popular medium and to go back to what Martin Rowson said and how me mentioned the capacity to laugh at those in a higher status and that it is ‘instilled within us’ as part of our human nature.

The major factor to highlight though is the primal aim of a caricature is to take down the subject/target which is detailed once again through McWilliam saying “when contemporary British cartoonists like Gerald Scarfe, Steve Bell and Martin Rowson create hybrid figures and fantastical monstrous figures they draw on a long tradition of the grotesque in British satirical prints, evidenced by the work of 18th century artists like James Gillray”. However, despite this the threat to the target is considerably less in contemporary times and therefore rendering the overall impact of the caricatures much more harmless. So in effect in terms of the art forms purpose it might well be under threat as the politicians of today just see it as another cartoon and that there isn’t much else to it.

The social media of today has an important role to play to both what could be the demise of the caricature but also a platform for it to be circulated and recognised by a greater mass audience.

Josh Atkinson – Context of Practice – Level 4 -­‐ OUIL401 – Studio Brief 1

For exploring into the demise it is worth looking at the social media platforms such as Facebook and twitter. Because of the modern media and digital age of today the general public now have a means of expressing their views and opinions to each other and something that is often the case to people such as politicians. Particularly through twitter people can effectively send out their own forms of a verbal attack if they so wish, which of course goes back to the act of spoken word protest which was the main form of protest before caricatures. So in effect do ordinary people as opposed to the practitioners now have their own way of distributing effectively what a caricature represents to their intended target via the social media platforms?

Furthermore, with this angle the modern world is making caricatures in the form of newspaper publications ever increasingly obsolete. Yes, people still buy newspapers but because of the factor that we are so used to seeing cartoons of this nature we have become saturated by it and see them all as the same. Therefore, the impact is not quite the same as it used to be and they are certainly not seen as innovative anymore. This is also because of the internet and the reason being that we can look for ourselves now and we don’t need the ‘luxury’ of the newspapers to get our opinions from the satirical images that we want to see.

Not to mention because of the advances in education the factor of being illiterate is no longer a problem therefore more written articles are put in place of editorial/political cartoons. As opposed to when the people of the 18-­‐19th Century were illiterate and the only way for them to understand the stance of a satirist (which was to sway the opinions of the general public) was through a funny satirical image.

Despite this argument there will always be a relevance for the political caricature as it is a form of art that ‘draws’ on a long tradition of Satire especially political satire. As long as politicians have been unpopular the idea of a political caricature has been the opposite and have very much held a place in the hearts and opinions of the common mans. To ridicule and to bring down the elite is what purpose the political caricature serves and is perceived as a rallying point for the voters in a way that can sway their opinions and perceptions on the people in power.

To reiterate the initial point of to what extent the British caricature has effected those in political power it is worth noting that there has never been any detrimental effect on the politicians apart from the words of Napoleon Bonaparte when reflecting on the caricature that Gillray depicted of him. Never the less this does not have any baring on the overall impact on the political caricature and the intention of the caricature has not changed, it is still as relevant as it is today as a way of stripping away at the exterior of the politicians and is still a tool to exercise the masses coming together and uniting against the hard times that they face through the ruling government.

Josh Atkinson – Context of Practice – Level 4 -­‐ OUIL401 – Studio Brief 1 Bibliography

Books: • Clayton, T. (2007) Caricatures: Of the peoples of the British Isles. London: British Museum Press.

• McWilliam, N. (ed.) (2010) Lines of attack: Conflicts in caricature: United States: Duke University Museum of Art, U.S.

Videos: •

•

• •

Fort Lewis College. S3E1: A Razor Sharp Pen: The Evolution of Political Cartoons [internet] available from<www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFnfd7ARR5g.com>[27/1/16].

Al Jazeera English. Listening Post – Feature – Political Cartoonists: Drawing controversy [internet] available from<www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgjdlR4OYyU.com>[27/1/16] The RSA. Martin Rowson – The power of the Political Cartoon [internet] available from<www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeoeIPG_YrY.com>[27/1/16].

Gresham College. The History of British Cartoons and Caricature – The Rt Hon Lord Baker [internet] available from<www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1tH2mVJ3P4.com>[27/1/16].

Websites: •

Baker, J. Nottingham contemporary James Gillray [internet] available from< www.cradledincaricature.com/2012/05/19/nottingham-contemporary-jamesgillray.co.uk>[ 24/1/16].

•

Navasky, V. 15 Historic cartoons that changed the world [internet] available from<www.buzzfeed.com/victornavasky/15-historic-cartoons-that-changedthe-world#.ybz79WoGl9.co.uk>[24/1/16].

• •

•

Author unknown. James Gillray [internet] available from< https://en.wiki2.org/wiki/James_Gillray>[24/1/16].

Adams, C. My cartoons have politicians spitting mad or coughing up [internet] available from<www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11210733/My-cartoonshave-politicians-spitting-mad-orcoughing-up.html>[26/1/16].

Goldstein, R. Political Caricature and International Complications in

Josh Atkinson – Context of Practice – Level 4 -­‐ OUIL401 – Studio Brief 1 Nineteenth-Century Europe [internet] available from<www.caricaturesetcaricature.com/article-10259459.html>[28/1/16].

•

Author unknown. Punch Magazine [internet] available from<www.punch.co.uk/about/.co.uk>[28/1/16].

•

LeBoeuf, Megan, "The Power of Ridicule: An Analysis of Satire" (2007).

Senior Honors Projects. Paper 63 [internet] available from http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=srhon orsprog > [30/4/16].