Christmas
mornings are lazy by definition, and I am a procrastinator on the worst, most
deadline-ridden days. So you can imagine why I would spend hours skimming
magazine websites and absentmindedly clicking on articles. With a tall mug of
black coffee and a warm sun on the window, it seemed like a beautiful start to
the day. That is, until I had the misfortune of discovering the article and the artist that I am about to talk about.
It
was on Konbini, a pop-culture magazine that has come up on my feed a lot in
December. Jordan Gold had compiled and introduced a series of cartoon
illustrations by Luis Quiles earlier this month. This article made its way into
my reading material on Christmas morning, and promptly ruined it. It began the
by talking about the mixed effects of internet feminism. This alone confused me
a little, because I have personally benefited enormously from the websites,
zines, blogs and Youtube channels that
discuss feminism with an accessibility and candour that all of us need
right now. I have learnt a lot, even from people that I completely disagree
with. But that was okay. It seemed like
a good hook to start a discussion about art that engages with it.
And
then I saw the first picture.
It
was titled ‘Columbia’. Now, firstly, because it is uses the Colombian national
flag as its background, I would have thought the title would refer to the
country and not to the university, which incidentally would also make for a
great commentary on sexual violence right now. But the spelling ambiguity was
the first of many problems. The picture shows a woman wearing only a hijab. Her
body is bare and instead of nipples, we see smileys.
Now,
I am not an art-historian and perhaps it was a sign of my lack of education
that I could not see any social commentary in that picture except the
flimsiest, laziest kind that casually uses some ‘profound’ symbols and
juxtapositions to legitimise what is basically a horribly objectified white
female body. Evidence?
Well,
for one thing, her body is viewed from above – usually, if not always, a sign of entitlement on
the part of the viewer/reader. If you want to depict oppression in a way that effortlessly
manages not to lend itself to masturbation, try Joe Sacco. In this case, there
is clearly a problem. The breasts glisten – the body is not only faceless but
effectively othered by a hijab. And infantilized
with those Disney-princess eyes, and it is also shiny, skinny (shows ribs) and
still large-breasted. Also, if anyone can explain the statement ‘You make the
cocaine…’ to me, I will be grateful. For me at least, the reduction of nearly
fifty years of violent and illegal drug trade into a ready, easy cartoon mainly
about breasts does not qualify as social commentary.
I
scrolled down and had a look at all the cartoons. In every image that engaged
with the adult female body had been blatantly sexualized. ‘Girlfriend’, I
think, particularly awful. You cannot really depict the relationship between
videogames, fantasy and misogyny by depicting a woman exactly how that culture
would. Adding a band-aid does not cut it. If Quiles is aiming for irony, it is damningly
ineffective.
In
most of the works, I saw a last-minute attempt at inserting respectability and
fashionable subversion into what were primarily highly eroticized bodies of
women, offered for the viewer’s delectation. In ‘Walking Dead’ of course, I
could not find any commentary, which is why it was perhaps the least annoying
image. Here the artist unapologetically gives in to his fantasizing. I have not
watched the series but I can imagine that all women vulnerable to imminent
zombie attacks do in fact hang out in incredibly impractical unbuttoned
onesies, and as a zombie in knotted shirts and panties. Still don’t see how the
work is included in an article about art as social commentary.
Same
problem with ‘Pussy Riot’ and ‘Anti-Smoking’.
The
only image that really worked as an intervention, that made me sit up with
something other than irritation was ‘Disney’. Terrific colours and conception
and in that cartoon, the inherently graphic style of his actually works very
well. Same for ‘Untitled’.
I
find Luis Quiles’ style arresting, and some of his works do achieve stark
visual effects replete with interventional ability. But that does not mean that
they are interventions at this particular moment as his career. Most of the
artwork, from I have seen on Konbini and his own page, is no better than any
other mediocre cartoon that objectifies women for entertainment. Right now,
most of it is simply smut. To pass it off as ‘tackling’ geo-political issues is
an insult both to his potential and the intelligence of the reader and it
bothers me that a new, interesting magazine would do that.
Of
course, Luis Quiles’ own admission[1] that
the ‘deep message’ is just ‘boobs’ does not help his cause at all.
[1]
Christmas Eve post on his Facebook face. See the cartoon:
https://www.facebook.com/luisquilesart/photos/a.431789840308060.1073741837.290662047754174/431789923641385/?type=1&theater
No comments:
Post a Comment