velicocola.ga/map14.php Donald Marquis Heute hat ein Rezensent mein Comeback verdorben. Hans Bender. Diese eine Zitrone Von chemischen Reaktionen will ich nichts wissen, von Radarkontrollen nichts und nichts vom Protokoll. Nur diese eine Zitrone will ich aus dem Fenster werfen, und wo sie landet, das interessiert mich ebenfalls nicht. Simone Hirth. Nesselfieber oder Bitte an mich Komm, sei so gut. Nicht diese Wut! And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. Oktober — Dezember Theo Breuer. Lyrikstationen Ich tue es Brinkmann gern nach.
Dieter P. Wie wohl wirkt sich das auf die Auflage aus? Was dem einen das Buch in der Hand, ist dem anderen die Zeigefingerbeere an der Maus. Aber auch das kann man schon wieder positiv sehn, wie Gerard Manley Hopkins, von dem zu Lebzeiten nicht ein Gedicht gedruckt wurde: Ein Dichter ist sich selbst sein Publikum. Mir gefriert das Blut, wenn ich diese Verse lese, und gleichzeitig beginnt es zu wallen. Die ersten Gedichte vor rund dreitausend Jahren zu verfassen war zum einen ein gigantischer Schritt aus der lyrischen Sprachlosigkeit heraus, zum anderen trafen die Verfasser der ersten Verse der Menschheit nicht auf den sich gleichsam permanent potenzierenden Ballast der Tradition.
Ernst Jandl. Michael Arenz Hg. Heinz Ludwig Arnold Hg. Hans Bender, Wie es kommen wird. Michael Braun und Michael Buselmeier Hg. Markus Breidenich Hg. Jahrgang, Werner Bucher Hg. Fischer, Frankfurt am Main Peter Ettl Hg. Julietta Fix Hg. Thomas Geiger Hg. Hans Werner Gey Hg. Michael Gratz Hg. Andreas Heidtmann Hg.
Das Magazin des Poetenladens , 7. Norbert Hummelt und Klaus Siblewski Hg. Karl E. Jirgens Hg. Matthias Kehle Hg. Gregor Koall Hg. Axel Kutsch Hg. Anton G. Leitner Hg. Literaturwerkstatt Berlin Hg. Iwona Mickiewicz, brunnentief brunnenklar , mit Linolschnitten von Zoppe Voskuhl, 32 unpaginierte Seiten, Handfadenbindung, Format 12 x 26 cm, numeriert und signiert, Corvinus Presse, Berlin Frank Milautzcki Hg. Schmidt, Verlag im Proberaum 3, Klingenberg Georg Milzner, Ophelias. In the following, definitions are developed for each of these that will govern their use in this thesis.
Its etymology reflects some of the theoretical difficulties with the term. In everyday speech, a stereotype is a caricature of group characteristics, a perception which exaggerates the differences between the stereotyped group and others. This definition is largely due to the theoretical understanding of the phenomenon developed in the first half of the twentieth century. However, the socio-psychological investigation of the stereotype has continued apace, leading in recent years to a significant reappraisal.
For the most part we do not first see, and then define, we define first and then see. In the great blooming, buzzing confusion of the outer world we pick out what our culture has already defined for us, and we tend to perceive that which we have picked out in the form stereotyped for us by our culture. Yet he argued that they fulfilled an important function in helping us cope with and make sense of our environment:. For the real environment is altogether too big, too fleeting for direct acquaintance. We are not equipped to deal with so much subtlety, so much variety, so many permutations and combinations.
And although we have to act in that environment, we have to reconstruct it on a simpler model before we can manage with it. He argued, further, that the system of stereotypes not only serves to create order and clarity for us but is also closely bound up with our individual identity:. It is the guarantee of our self-respect; it is the projection upon the world of our own sense of our own value, our own position and our own rights. The stereotypes are, therefore, highly charged with the feelings that are attached to them.
They are the fortress of our tradition, and behind its defenses we can continue to feel ourselves safe in the position we occupy. He saw stereotypes as solidified but modifiable and as playing an important part in making decisions easier.
Studies from the s to the s focused on identifying the defining properties of stereotypes and became less value-free. Stereotypes were described by researchers as rigid, inflexible or persistent beliefs, images or representations; or as over-generalizations which were either wholly factually inaccurate or contained only a kernel of truth. However, few attempts were made to study accuracy empirically and those that did were poorly done or open to multiple interpretations.
Two influential perspectives developed during this period. The first saw stereotypes as the shared products of our worst cultural tendencies, the second as mostly the products of minds whose shallow rationality could not buffer deep insecurities. The dominant liberal ideology maintained that the stereotype and its close relation prejudice were due to faulty education and corrupt culture. While there may be many different categories of stereotypes, the work done by social psychologists on social stereotypes i.
Since the s two general approaches have dominated the study of stereotyping in social psychology. The social cognition approach, with its emphasis on cognitive process, error and bias, has been predominant in North America and owes its development to Gordon Allport He first articulated the extent to which stereotyping and prejudice are fundamental cognitive processes.
The second approach has been primarily European and is based upon the social identity and self-categorization theories, expounded principally by Henri Tajfel Yet the view that stereotypes were fundamentally flawed has continued to prevail, despite a lack of empirical support. Most research has been laboratory-based, rather than fieldwork, and has been concerned with inaccurate, negative stereotypes, thus dealing with only one pairing in this complex of variables.
Stereotypes are a functional aid to orientation, employed by us all to make cognitive sense of the constant stream of new impressions we are exposed to. However, far from being rigid and insensitive to contradiction, stereotypes appear to be fluid and variable according to intergroup relations, context, and the needs, values and purposes of the stereotyper.
Oakes et al. Research shows that stereotyped characteristics are rarely if ever considered by subjects to apply to all members of the stereotyped group. Rather, stereotypes are better understood as probabilistic perceptions of group difference. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that stereotypes per se are unjustified, inaccurate, exaggerated or oversimplified. It is also premature to conclude that they reflect ethnocentrism. In short, it appears that stereotypes have been stereotyped. Demythologizing the concept of stereotype may mean the loss of its seductive charm for some:.
We have removed much of the historical fact from stereotypes. They are no longer seen as necessarily sour or rotten; they are not even flavored by the spice of everyday interaction in a multicultural society. In contemporary social psychology, stereotypes have no flavor at all. However, as Schneider points out, we must face the fact that the stereotypes we most cling to are the ones that are negative, inaccurate, and culturally conditioned p. For stereotypes are like diamonds: they have many facets, reflecting the light of reality in different ways at different times.
While first hand personal experience plays a decisive role in stereotype development, many, if not most, stereotypes result from a process of socialization involving parents, schools and the media. Identifying with the in-group means internalizing its stereotypes in order to be similar to other in-group members. Stereotypes are likewise classified according to the group to which they refer. Autostereotypes tend to be more complex than heterostereotypes, whilst heterostereotypes would appear more likely to be exaggerated than autostereotypes.
In the development of stereotypes there is a group dynamic tendency to contrast the in-group with an out-group, usually by setting a positive autostereotype against a negative heterostereotype. Such contrastive stereotyping fulfils a number of functions at both intra- and intergroup levels. Group weaknesses are warned of, and possibly undesirable aspects of a desired self-image are criticized by identifying them as elements of a negative heterostereotype. An idealized autostereotype also draws attention to the need for collective responsibilities particularly at times of change or crisis.
At the intergroup level, stereotypes contribute to the creation and maintenance of group ideologies, explaining or justifying a variety of social actions against out-groups. Within a society, also, stereotypes are used ideologically by the dominant groups and, as a consequence, cement the existing structures of control. As Dyserinck points out, every construction of a heterostereotype is accompanied by that of an autostereotype. This is usually the national readership of the newspaper printing the cartoons.
As this study is primarily concerned with the cartoon portrayal of Britain and Germany the focus will be on national stereotypes as the chief component of these images. National stereotypes are a particular category of social stereotype and involve the general application of specific characteristics to members of a nation or inhabitants of a particular country held to be representative thereof.
Studies of national stereotypes show a consensus and stability of belief about the attributes of national groups. Intergroup conflict and alliances are a major factor that can lead to dramatic changes in established stereotypes. Thus the political and economic relationship between two countries has a significant bearing upon the development and maintenance of their stereotypes of themselves and each other. To traverse the world men must have maps of the world. The highlighting of particular national characteristics can reveal a great deal about the norms, lifestyles and fears of the stereotyping nation.
Contemporary problems can be portrayed and criticized by projecting them onto a national out-group and thus enabling the development of an ideal image for the in-group. Hence insights about a nation can be gained from an examination of its portrayal of and views about another. The group may be the in-group or an out-group; the event part of an in-group, out-group, or intergroup experience, such as the Second World War; the institution part of the in-group or out-group environment, or one in which both converge, such as the European Union.
Leaving aside text-related rhetorical and aesthetic considerations for the moment, the stereotype can be seen to function in a number of social-psychological ways. It may serve as diagnostic information about social groups; simplify a complex social environment; provide positive feedback about the stereotyper and the in-group and help create social self-esteem; and it can justify existing attitudes or social situations.
There is no evidence to show that one function is more important than another.
Implicit in this definition and functional breakdown is the understanding that a stereotype says more about those who express and employ it than about that to which it refers. It is a route for self-discovery, for the way we look at others is also a way of looking at ourselves. Indeed, it is argued that only by looking at others can we really see ourselves, or by changing the way we look at others can we also change ourselves.
In conclusion, stereotypes are not necessarily bad. They can be used to challenge or maintain the status quo, and their application can have positive or negative consequences. Rather than being dysfunctional, distorted or prejudiced, they are formed to explain aspects of and relations between social groups and to help us make sense of the world we live in.
Unterwegs - Verse und Prosa - faßt Titel zusammen, die nicht auf eine einzige der Kategorien "Reiseberichte, Reiseerzählungen, Belletristik, Lyrik" reduziert. Editorial Reviews. About the Author. Robert Axt, geboren in Frankfurt am Main, lebt seit Unterwegs: Verse und Prosa (German Edition) by [Axt, Robert].
Stereotypes can reflect real differences and identities between cultures or social groups. Accepting these cultural differences and identities may promote greater understanding among cultures. Furthermore, the recognition of real cultural differences may further enable us to understand and resolve realistic conflicts among groups.
The distinction between stereotype and prejudice parallels that which is commonly made between beliefs or opinions and attitudes. Stroebe and Insko define the two as follows:. Stereotypes are beliefs or opinions about attributes of a social group or members whereas prejudice is conceptualized as a negative intergroup attitude.
An attitude is a tendency to evaluate an entity with some degree of favor or disfavor. A prejudice is an attitude towards members of some outgroup and in which the evaluative tendencies are predominantly negative. Moreover, they suggest that stereotypes must have some bearing upon the expression of prejudice because of the nature of this belief-attitude interrelationship:.
Social psychologists identify stereotype, prejudice and discrimination as the three components of category-based reactions to out-groups: stereotype is taken as the most cognitive component, prejudice as the most affective component, and discrimination as the most behavioural component. All three are seen as partly automatic and socially pragmatic, yet at the same time individually controllable and responsive to social structures.
Prejudice need not imply a dislike based on irrational beliefs about an out-group, because sometimes out-group rejection may have legitimate causes in particular intergroup contexts Jews disliking Nazis, for example. Neither should it imply that all intergroup attitudes are negative, because an out-group can also be perceived favourably, as is the case, for example, between friendly nations.
As with a stereotype, the sharing of a prejudice by members of an in-group is a mark of group identity and belonging. Prejudice differs from stereotype in that it also contains a behavioural component. Thus, while both prejudice and stereotypes have socio-psychological relevance, only the concept of stereotype is applicable to the textual analysis of a medium like cartoons.
Whilst contemporary commentators warn against lightly assuming that stereotypes bear a close relation to prejudice, recent research suggests that the link is not insignificant and that modifying stereotypes may be a more reasonable way to reduce prejudice than trying to change personality traits. Although it thus fails to contribute meaning to social interactions and to communication, it does function socially, since it manages to stimulate behaviour i.
It is a central category determining the perception and interpretation of political events, particularly at international level, reducing political complexities and avoiding ambiguity and insecurity. It has been commonly employed in times of war or national crisis. The friend-foe pattern serves two major functions. First, it assists in the integration of a bloc of friends because it makes the need to be unified against a real or imagined enemy more plausible. Secondly, the concept of the enemy provides an appropriate target for the projection of in-group problems and the outlet of aggression.
It is rare to find images of the enemy in the fullest sense in the British cartoons surveyed, although occasions such as the Gulf War and the currency crisis produced images attacking the Germans so vehemently that they were tantamount to Feindbilder. Most cartoons that could be interpreted as presenting an image of Germans as the enemy appeared in the period immediately before, during and after the process of German reunification. As such it can be seen that they reflected the feelings of suspicion and deep concern which this process engendered for many people in Britain.
I have found no evidence of images of this nature being used in German cartoons of the British over the last fifty years. Certainly Britain and Mrs Thatcher in particular were depicted in bellicose terms during the Falklands War, but no image could be said to approximate an image of the enemy, not least because this was not an Anglo-German conflict. It is not something one would expect to find in German cartooning anyway since Transforming images into Feindbilder was a speciality of the Nazi propaganda machine, and Germans experienced it to excess during the dictatorship as others have done and continue to do under dictatorships everywhere.
This has conditioned Germans certainly those who have long memories — against any form of caricature that employs unfairly harsh stereotypes, particularly of national or ethnic out-groups. Bleicher sees an image as being based upon elements that were only valid for a set period of time.
Both image and stereotype are forms of reality recognition and may have a common development and function. Marten maintains that image tends to be used in contemporary language to refer to stereotypes transmitted by the media. Es kann auch, ja es wird meist vorurteilsvolle und stereotype Vorstellungen enthalten. Stereotypes can fulfil equally important text-based functions and serve as a valuable tool in the fashioning of communicative discourse.
They always represent a foundation upon which every description of the stereotyped group will be written and read. They are integrally part of the conventional stockpile of every linguistic and cultural community, whose members readily understand and recognize them. They are more usually projections of previously existent facts which have been long superseded before the stereotypes became publicized.
Cartoonists in particular can gain distinct advantage from appealing to the stereotype foreknowledge of their readership, which may be in the form of images. The readership is given an aid to orientation in the text and can quickly identify and categorize the foundation image. It can thus be effectively led into a more complex communicative structure, which might otherwise be seen as impenetrable and immediately passed over.
Whether this is advantageous overall depends very much on how the stereotype is used and integrated in the text, how it is received by the readership, and whether it is deconstructed if negative. They might be used to elicit strong feelings about a subject; usually those of animosity. Or they have a humorous content albeit at the expense of the stereotyped group which may be primitive but no less effective in its impact on the readership.
The functional role national stereotypes play in a work is something that needs to be valued, for removing them could mean a loss of concretization and the construction of persons and places without a specifically recognizable national identity. The purpose of this section has been to explain the method and terminology employed in this study. Central to the imagological approach is the context-related analysis of form and function of images as well as an investigation of the ideology they represent.
As part of the image complex, stereotyping has been identified as an intrinsic and inescapable part of human cognition, helping us to cope with our environment and define ourselves against others. Stereotypes as generalizations are, therefore, not to be seen as bad or wrong per se. They may bear little relation to reality, may be irrationally fixed but are, nevertheless, subject to change. They may give rise to prejudice, and this is when they become a cause for concern. National images develop as part of entertainment and informational discourses. National stereotypes, in particular, are useful as rhetorical and aesthetic tools.
In the next chapter these observations will be related to press and print cartooning in Germany and Britain from to A definitional treatment and an overview of the historical development of the genre will provide the background for an investigation of the contemporary practice of this media art form in each country. Attention will be given to those areas especially relevant to the imagological agenda, such as the function and influence of cartoonists and their position in the structure of the German and British print media.
This chapter provides the second foundation for this study of British and German caricatural images of each other by examining the medium of cartoons and caricatures in general. In the first section, the process of defining the two terms is charted over time to arrive at a contemporary differentiation appropriate for their usage here.
The second section presents an historical overview of the application of caricature and cartooning as a satirical and critical means in the modern age. Particular attention will be given to the expression of the genre in the two countries under consideration, Britain and Germany. The third section deals with facets of the nature of cartoons and caricature relevant to the areas of imagological analysis outlined in the previous chapter.
The focus in the fourth section will be on the functions, influence and practical parameters of cartooning as part of the print media as variously defined by commentators and cartoonists themselves. In the penultimate section the relationship between cartoons and the print media will be investigated further to give a more contextualized picture of the position cartoonists occupy in the publications for which they work, as well as the way they contribute to the press package on offer.
The final section is concerned with the concept of stereotype in the context of cartoons and the media. Cartoon and caricature are not the same thing, although the two terms function almost interchangeably. The areas to which the terms are applied and their content cover such a wide spectrum that a Babel of meanings easily results; a fact not helped by the limited degree of consensus amongst art theorists about the defining qualities of cartoons and caricatures. Another complexity is philological. The usage and meaning of the words varies from one European language to another.
Because the use of the word caricature in the context of satirical art predates that of cartoon and because caricature is one of the fundamental building blocks of the cartoon it is logical to begin by defining caricature. The talented draughtsman, who knows how to help nature, depicts that alteration much more expressly and puts it before the beholder as a small exaggerated portrait in a way more suitable for a perfect deformity. Gianlorenzo Bernini advanced the significance of caricature, seeing it as a way of reproducing, through exaggeration, quirks both of appearance and personality, and so revealing a truer portrait of an individual.
In a verse satire published anonymously in , a session of caricaturing is described involving Bernini and the poet. Addressing the reader, the latter explains depicting an individual by this means:. If he has a misshapen or distorted limb, Or [is] far from the others or too close, Or too long or too short, This disproportion is magnified: and often Although he is shown much uglier, you could say That it is a more accurate resemblance. He describes this in characteristically florid fashion as the aim of caricature:. Mit ihren Mitteln, seien es nun die der Groteske, der Symbolik, der Allegorie u.
While arguing that the boundaries of caricature are fluid, Hofmann also maintains that the principal features are those of exaggeration and distortion. Metaphorical transmutations such as depicting Helmut Kohl as a piranha or Margaret Thatcher as a bellicose Britannic sea-monster are not explicit examples of exaggeration. Such deformation can be achieved not just by exaggeration or distortion but also by substitution, juxtaposition, or metamorphosis, or by combinations of these, which serve to individualize the representation.
Thus, caricature is almost always negative and critical in intent, yet never so divorced from reality as to be unassimilable. Like its progenitor the caricature, the cartoon in the satirical sense is a difficult thing to define closely. Basically any illustration containing elements of caricatural deformation could be called a cartoon.
Cartoons are generally more complex in their communication than caricatures, generating meaning by use of signs, symbols, literary and historical allusions, visual analogies and written texts, all of which belong to a specific cultural context. Words are contained in captions, speech balloons or within the drawing itself and are often essential for an understanding of the cartoon as a whole. This provides a useful general definition. Regardless of the purposes to which it is put, which may range from scorching satire to harmless persiflage, the cartoon is at base an aggressive medium, an offensive weapon whose effect can be devastating.
In what follows the term cartoon will be used to include caricature, unless the latter is specifically stated. A cartoon need no more be humorous than it need be satirical. Several terms are used to typologize cartoons and these will be clarified in what follows. Indeed they may be deadly serious. Political cartoons form the bulk of the primary material of this study. They are not necessarily topical. Their appeal often rests on their seemingly broad, timeless applicability and thus their use of stereotypes.
A division is sometimes made between political and social cartoons, suggesting they are parallel genres. However, this is problematical because many social issues, such as pollution and abortion, have strong political implications. They aim to be humorous, may employ caricatural techniques to achieve this end, but do not have a clearly discernible satirical intent. Satire in word and image is believed to have existed in all cultural epochs.
While satire developed as a rich form of literary expression from Antiquity onwards, its pictorial expression remained limited until the evolution of aesthetics during the Renaissance. At the same time, the upheavals of the Reformation were granting people unprecedented critical liberty.
This was aided considerably by technological advances in graphic art and information dissemination, with woodcuts and copperplate engravings reproduced en masse as illustrated broadsheets by printing presses across Northern Europe. It was in the often naive, but often surprisingly sophisticated, pictures of German illustrated broadsheets and frontispiece illustrations that men first learnt the basic techniques of graphic satire, exploiting puns and illustrating metaphors and images drawn largely from the Bible and the popular proverbs and idioms in order to reinforce the message of the texts.
And it was in Germany that this tradition of religious polemicism was adapted for the purposes of political satire at the time of the Thirty Years War. The development of modern caricature is seen as closely linked with the emergence of the concept of individuality and a spirit of ridicule and mockery in the seventeenth century. This was part of the process of intellectual liberation from the straitjacket of authority and tradition in the wake of the Reformation:.
Erst mit der neuen Anschauung vom Menschen, die sich im Die Karikatur ist bildhafter Ausdruck desselben Geistes, der aus dem von autoritativen und traditionellen Fesseln sich befreienden Kritizismus und Skeptizismus spricht. The invention of portrait caricature is attributed to the Bolognese brothers, Agostino and Annibale Carracci Bernini made an advance on their experiments by seeking to expose the very personality of the subject through caricature, thus further popularizing the style and establishing it properly as an artistic genre.
This new mode of representation caught on, with connoisseurs and critics of the period taking great pleasure in justifying and defining it in elaborate theoretical treatises. Cartooning in its modern sense was an outgrowth of caricature, and its development as an instrument of social and political criticism followed closely the rise of a liberal, tolerant, and democratically-minded bourgeois society, whose values it then put to the test.
By the beginning of the eighteenth century such a society was establishing itself in England, providing the location for the melding of caricature and satirical print, which arrived from the Netherlands following the Glorious Revolution of There portrait caricature, a new device, recently imported from Italy, was used to quicken the old-style allegorical print in the work of Townshend, Hogarth, and their successors; it was their example that, reexported to the continent, was to lead to the establishment of the grand tradition of European political caricatures in the prints and latterly the journals of the early nineteenth century.
Graphic satire flourished in England as a settled political system developed under the Hanoverians in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The concomitant climate of relative liberty encouraged political debate and assertiveness amongst ever widening circles of British society as well as in a burgeoning press, free of censorship. Their etchings were sold as single sheets by printshops and bookshops, principally in London, and only sporadically published in periodicals, while their use in the nascent newspapers was as yet technically and commercially unfeasible.
In the nineteenth century cartooning reached a classical high point. Around the French took up the baton of incisive graphic satire from the English, as the latter entered a period of genteel critical restraint in reaction to the Georgian free-for-all. Punch, or the London Charivari , the first English journal dedicated to cartooning and comic writing, followed in The Punch school tended to be reflective, more concerned with the quality of draughtsmanship than presenting clever insights or forcing home any weighty political message.
Because of the time required for engraving and the conventions of printing, cartoons were not taken up by daily newspapers in Britain until later in the nineteenth century. Political cartooning went into abeyance until the Revolution of allowed a brief flowering, before again being suppressed until Only Kladderadatsch achieved any permanence, providing the model for later journals such as Der Wahre Jacob and Simplicissimus Wilhelm Busch was perhaps its most prominent exponent.
By the end of the nineteenth century, and with unification, Germany achieved a degree of social and political stability which allowed the restoration of independent, critical commentary on public affairs. This was the role adopted by Simplicissimus , which showcased graphic satire of unprecedented artistic and critical distinction.
The journal followed a zig-zag course in tandem with the development of the German bourgeoisie, exchanging its critical stance for full patriotic fervour in the First World War. During the First World War cartoonists in Britain and Germany were restrained by censorship and propaganda guidelines. There is even evidence on the German side of systematic cooperation with the authorities. In the twenties the illustrated press flourished in Britain, and political cartooning generally reflected editorial policy.
His international celebrity status was achieved by syndication as well as by the universal appeal of the characters he created, like the reactionary Colonel Blimp. The Weimar period in Germany saw talents like Georg Grosz caricaturing capitalist corruption and exposing the violence associated with the rise of fascism. At the outbreak of the Second World War cartoonists were again enlisted for the war effort as part of a wider media propaganda programme. The occupying forces exercised control over the reconstruction of the German media, principally through the granting of press licenses.
This was particularly important in the British and US zones where many facets of British and American newspaper publishing were adopted, including the editorial cartoon commenting on current affairs which appeared in the same place each day in the newspaper. Many of those who had gone into exile stayed abroad or returned much later; few of those that had remained were free from the taint of Nazi collaboration. By the press was establishing itself as an integral part of West German democracy, and the satirical drawing was party to that process. Removed, however, was the bile and spleen associated with the destructive propaganda of the preceding decades.
As Keim states:.
Moreover, post-war graphic satire in Germany was marked by a further evolutionary step: the use of the comique absolu , of nonsense, as best seen in the work of artists belonging to the Neue Frankfurter Schule. Commentators seem to agree that German cartooning pains no one much any more. In a press environment where broad-based regional newspapers predominate and cartoonists usually serve more than one title with the same sketch, it is commercially wise to keep as many editors and subscribers sweet as possible.
Despite this or perhaps because of it the political cartoon has experienced a boom in recent years in Germany. The reprinting of cartoons increased by more than thirty per cent from to , no doubt in part due to the momentous events of the period. The immediate post-war period saw a decline in political cartooning.
The evil of Naziism had been defeated and with it much of the crusading impetus for artists like Low had gone. It provided a medium for the revival of a more acerbic style of cartooning in showcasing the talents of precocious young artists such as Michael Heath b. Yet the overall impression remained of a dearth in biting graphic satire.
Writing in the pre-Thatcherite Britain of Walker was convinced that the spirit of the Golden Age had well and truly died and was not likely to be resurrected in a country still so much in thrall to past glories:. Most sadly, the vicious energy, the sheer violence of political hatred which were the essence of Gillray and Cruikshank, has long since ceased to be the dominant style.
Dyson had it, Scarfe and Steadman have touched it, but the constant, merciless screech of the Regency cartoonist has settled in the Twentieth Century to a well-mannered murmur. It is a kind of smugness about Britain, perhaps an inheritance from the war, when cartoonists like Low and Strube were in the front line of the propaganda battle for the Home Front. Cartoonists learned and were expected to celebrate and to promote some of our comforting British myths about ourselves.
One of the long-term effects of the ensuing eleven years of hardline partisan premiership may well have been the sustained rejuvenation of the satirical cartoon in Britain. It is generally agreed that the unique power that caricature once possessed has weakened. The future of press cartooning may not look very rosy to some, given the amusement-seeking, technologically diverse culture ours has become. History has shown that cartoonists can be chameleons. This section explores facets of the complex nature of cartoons and caricatures that inform the way in which they are used as tools of communication about ourselves and others.
According to psychoanalysts, cartoons like jokes provide us with basic enjoyment of the aggressive and obscene which we have otherwise lost through social, moral and logical pressures. Ernst Kris and Sir Ernst Gombrich were pioneers in the psychological interpretation of caricature. Visual images do in fact play a different part in our mind than that played by words. The visual image has deeper roots, is more primitive.
It presupposes a belief in the identity of the sign with the thing signified — a belief which surpasses in intensity the belief in the magic potency of the word. The cartoonist can mythologize the world of politics by physiognomizing it. By linking the mythical with the real he creates that fusion, that amalgam, that seems so convincing to the emotional world. In using techniques of this sort, cartoons allude to our fears, our vanities and our wishes. They evoke associations and, as a consequence, often elicit a strong emotional response, which might be of rage or rejection.
Cartoons help us to make sense of the world, using processes akin to stereotyping such as simplification and the reduction of complexity. Cartoons reveal, graphically, that, as Santayana put it. Caricatural representation has been described as neither truly realistic nor wholly abstract. There is nothing more characteristic of pictorial satire than its conservatism, both in style and content. It cannot be abstract. It relies on the familiar in order to be understood and tends to draw on the same old stock of motifs and stereotypes. This will be tolerated as long as the lies are seen as acceptable and for the public good.
Cartoonists blend fantasy with fact. So they mislead. But the terms of their expression are accepted and understood, and their imagery is not taken as literal truth.
This being said, a cartoon must always have a basis in fact. Otherwise, it simply rests on ideology or prejudice. Cartoonists are rhetoricians. Banks identifies two rhetorical strategies in cartoons. Cartoonists are trying in the play with metaphors to apply a story or myth known to the receivers of a news event and so link the familiar with the unfamiliar. Various rhetorical devices are employed by the cartoonist in constructing a comment. One of the basic and most frequently used forms is that of contrast, which allows cartoonists to convey a message at a single glance and within the confines of a single frame.
It invites the reader to consider a range of choices before reaching a conclusion. Two other rhetorical forms are commentary and contradiction. Contradiction exposes dichotomies, unmasks polarities and involves a clash of both visual and verbal forms, inviting condemnation and allowing no choice as is the case with contrast. The jolly demeanour and magnanimity of Kohl seem so at odds with the attributes of German character on the board that the latter would appear to apply less to the Chancellor than to the spike-nosed Prime Minister and her shamefaced assistant.
The reader is thus encouraged to condemn the memorandum as xenophobic, hypocritical nonsense. Medhurst and DeSousa maintain that, unlike many orators, editorial cartoonists enjoy the advantage of perceived authority, because their work appears in that part of the paper reserved for serious and informed discussion. They are seen as editors-in-chief of graphic comment and are granted the initial presumption of superior insight.
Gombrich notes that while visual images are highly successful in arousing emotions, they are limited in their ability to make explicit statements, as we can only recognize in a cartoon what we already know. Understanding cartoons as rhetoric explains not only their use as a means of persuasion. Along with other expressions of cultural identity, cartoons thematize and preserve what is present in the community sub- consciousness and memory and so embody unspoken attitudes and understandings:.
The cartoon or caricature is an iconic sign operating within a sign system based on symbols. They are the part of the imagery with which the cartoonist packages an idea. Symbols are representational, usually standing for something immaterial, abstract or too large and complex to be presented by other means. They act as tabs of identity enabling the beholder to recognize and comprehend quickly what the cartoonist has drawn. As such, they have an aphoristic function, encapsulating information about a person or situation.
By the same token, pictorial symbols are inherently ambiguous. The link with stereotypes is established. Symbols are building blocks in the construction and maintenance of stereotypes, which can themselves be seen as abstractions of popular thinking about particular groups. Figurative devices, symbolic imagery and colloquial metaphor are often not only culturally but also temporally specific, making them inexplicable to later generations. For this reason the allusions and cryptic associations used by cartoonists in previous centuries are sometimes lost on even the most perspicacious of historians.
Drawing upon a font of symbols from art, religion, history, literature and popular culture, cartoonists are also in the business of metaphor construction and elaboration. German financial probity coincided with a planned German commemoration of the V2 rocket project.
The cartoon connects the currency crisis with the memory of an historical event the Second World War to suggest that German aggression is alive and well in contemporary European politics. Cartoonists can also manipulate existing symbols. They may reverse the traditional content of a symbol and use it to represent something antithetical. Each nation has at its disposal a spectrum of caricatural identifiers which it uses to portray itself and others satirically or humorously.
Depending upon political circumstances different registers of symbols can be retrieved from the collective memory. As part of an image their function is to help express the harmonious, polemical or aggressive mood present in a given situation. Mehr will ich nicht. Giving the readers what they want is also identified by cartoonists as one of their major aims. The cartoon can thus be seen as part of an in-group experience. He believes cartoons, in common with other forms of satire, serve to strengthen social identity by contributing to the sense of superiority the in-group has over outsiders.
It does this by reinforcing group auto- and heterostereotypes. The cartoon also functions as the embodiment of conflict and aggression, through the use of satirical techniques, such as contrast, which differentiate the in-group from out-groups, and can even provoke out-group hostility. As already observed, cartoons are a form of persuasive communication.
Cartoons aim to form or sway opinion as well as stir the passions. Cartoonists have been described as outsiders — thus making them well-placed social observers — and a surprisingly large number have, indeed, come from outside the national communities they have served. He suggests the satirist, like the jester, symbolizes emotional power, the limitations of rational behaviour and thus the existence of forces outside authoritarian control. Some of his British contemporaries couch their attitudes in more colourful and less idealistic terms.
Political cartoonists ridicule and criticize the foibles of politicians. As such they serve as a form of opposition. Some commentators interpret this licence in much stronger terms. As a weapon in political warfare the cartoon or caricature can perform a symbolic execution — executio in effigie — and can kill by absurdity.
Commentators on political cartooning see the genre as fulfilling vital democratic functions: They help keep a country open to criticism and freedom of expression; they teach people to think for themselves; they make politics more concrete, comprehensible and legible for a public used to television. Donald makes the point that the role of the cartoonist as the oppositional voice of public morality is a relatively recent invention:. Since the nineteenth century, the cartoonist of stature has occupied a position of moral authority in society.
The mass circulation press has given him a medium in which to encapsulate public opinion and articulate the public conscience, and in this process, paradoxically, the cartoonist himself takes on a strongly marked and familiar personality. His images are celebrated for having provoked the mighty, and sometimes for having been produced in creative tension with the prudential restraints of proprietor and editor — a situation which the cartoonist has, on occasion, knowingly dramatised for the admiration of the readership.
The intransigence and passion of such challenges to the conduct of public life measure the degree to which, it is believed, he maintains his integrity and proper function as a cartoonist. An informative, indeed educative role is also accorded to the cartoonist.
Ein Hofnarr erzieht nicht! Riddell and Paul Thomas b. He does not see himself as an informant, because he is using information only as a basis for his work. It is generally felt that cartoonists, in common with all image-makers, influence in some way how we perceive ourselves and the world around us. Exactly the way this influence is exerted and what forms it takes is still a subject of enquiry. In the following the major arguments about the nature of this influence are discussed.
There is evidence to suggest that historically cartoons and caricatures have exercised an influence, albeit modest, on the course of particular events. Moreover, it has been widely believed — particularly by politicians — that cartoonists can influence public opinion. Winston Churchill saw cartoonists as bearing a great responsibility because of their ability to influence the way we view the world both as children and adults:. They have great power indeed, the cartoonists.
All the antagonisms of nations and of individuals are displayed in their harshest terms; and children, poring in wonderment at them, take it for granted that these were the real moves on the great chessboard of life. But anyhow, whatever children get or got from the dead pages of Punch , cartoons are the regular food on which the grown-up children of today are fed and nourished.
On these very often they form their views of public men and public affairs; on these very often they vote. In the First World War the Germans offered a large reward for capture of the fervently anti-German and hugely popular Dutch cartoonist Louis Raemaekers , while the National Socialists perceived political cartoons as possessing enough persuasive impact to have them regulated under the supervision of a special Caricature Department in the Ministry of Propaganda. The belief that cartoons had the power to influence political relations was no less significant in Britain in the same period.
Viscount Halifax, as Foreign Secretary in the unsettled years before the outbreak of the war, urged Low to soften his attacks on Hitler and Mussolini in order to make it easier to keep the peace in Europe. The very fact that politicians credit cartoons with having the power to influence people, is an influence in itself, as this belief may affect the way politicians themselves behave.
Cartoonists have been instrumental in the creation of popular symbols ranging from Uncle Sam to Santa Claus. Writing at the height of the Cold War, Boulding saw this image-making capacity as a powerful and potentially dangerous weapon in the hands of artists and journalists, who are able to reduce the complexities of international relations to black-and-white analogies of interpersonal relationships:. In international relations, the symbolic image of the nation is of extraordinary importance.
Indeed, it can be argued that it has developed to the point where it has become seriously pathological in its extreme form. By these symbols, the web of conflict is visualized not as a shifting, evanescent, unstable network of fine individual threads but as a simple tug-of-war between large opposing elements. This symbolic image is one of the major causes of international warfare and is the principal threat to the survival of our present world. Such symbolism thus provides a way of differentiating the in-group from out-groups other countries, races, national minorities and a means of maintaining separate and distinctive identity.
Many commentators have held the view that cartoons have the power to shape opinion. It is often said that the cartoonist may express what the editor dare not write. As an editorial cartoonist Ebert believes he has the power to shape opinions but only as part of the much larger body of the newspaper. His contemporary Skott disagrees. Whilst it would be nice to think he could help form public opinion, Skott feels the time has passed when cartoons can exercise such a function. Most contemporary commentators see the greatest influence of the cartoon lying in its ability to reflect and reinforce public opinion rather than create or change it.
It was probably more the case that they confirmed the prejudices of their buyers and reflected their opinions, thus reinforcing the outlook of the bourgeoisie. On the whole it is more important for the political satirist to flatter his public than to incite to hatred. The recipe for success is rarely different from that of the popular press and the popular television programme. Build up their egos, confirm their prejudices, and above all, tell them not to worry.
Cartoons are probably at their most influential when encapsulating the existing mood of their audience, rather than trying to create that mood. Walker sees this as evident in the Second World War when cartoons invariably reflected the tide of current opinion, rather than inspired it. Dittmar ironically points out that the cartoon can only convince those who were already convinced, just as a cartoon is only funny to those who can inhabit its landscape.
Even cartoonists of the calibre of David Low have probably reinforced opinions rather than changed them and influenced what people thought about rather than what they thought. Several cartoonists believed their work reinforced reader attitudes.
Pielert doubted cartoons had much influence at all and denied they could shape opinion. Garland b. He admits to a certain superficiality in largely reflecting headlines — the thought of the moment — in what he does, rather than any of his own ideas. Yet he sees this as a way of guarding against pomposity, which he feels is a real danger in the profession. One advantage of the cartoon is that, as an image , it has the potential to stay in the mind of the viewer long after the chronicle of events or statistics has faded.
Yet the influence and effectiveness of cartoons have proved consistently difficult to gauge. In the present age cartoons are just one small part of a diverse image culture that includes television, film and photography. The cartoon no longer operates as a central image in the newspaper, while the press has lost its status as the dominant information medium. As we have seen, the evidence since suggests that it is very difficult for the news media to influence opinion in specific directions.
The fact is we know very little about the way cartoons impact on us; whether they only confirm attitudes or are also able to change them. However, Riddell and Bell think it would be disingenuous to believe that cartoons have no influence. Bell thinks his work must have some little effect if only because it is so widely circulated and reproduced.
It is thus part of the general drip-drip of commentary. Riddell sees the cartoon as adding to the perception of issues and individuals with its advantage as an informative medium resting on its accessibility. He finds it encouraging because it means what he is doing is not in vain. Sometimes cartoonists are more than a little surprised by the impact their work has. The cartoon cannot exert influence of any kind unless it is understood by those who receive it. More specifically, the cartoon can only shape an opinion in the direction the cartoonist chose if its message is understood in the way the cartoonist intended.
Whilst they may be concise, they are often saying quite sophisticated things, which are open to various readings. The issue was debated in the Commons and the paper was threatened with a publication ban. Theories about the comprehension of specific meanings in media texts also go some way towards explaining the complexity of this issue.
The most influential model for audience reception was that propounded by Stuart Hall b. The audience inflects it locally to take account of its own social position, and this inflection may contain elements of resistance. It may therefore be concluded that cartoons, as examples of media texts, are an unreliable vehicle for persuasion.
Cartoonists have opportunities, responsibilities and power but always within the limits of what their contexts will allow. These pressures and restraints govern the way they work, and the artist who goes beyond them risks losing credibility and effectiveness. They may be self-imposed, such as subjects which the professional does not touch as a topic of caricature because of their sensitivity. They may be imposed by their working environment, such as what the newspaper can publish without causing its readership offence, or are implicit in it, such as ethical norms.
There are legal restrictions about what the cartoonists can portray.