Oh please, like you would have been capable of "eh, it's pretty good". Dude, it's not like I dragged you into this conversation!
And I mean, if you'll recall, Tobocman also draw devil horns on himself. His work is heavy on visual symbolism because using signifiers like that is an effective way of portraying complex concepts in simple yet evocative ways - it's a propaganda tactic, but does that make it propaganda? The goal of propaganda is to tell people what to think, usually through oversimplifying things and obfuscating the truth. Tobocman's work does the opposite - it points out the complexities that are often overlooked by mainstream media sources, and brings attention to the realities of situations that we usually only see one side of - the side with enough money to get their side told.
Also, as to the role of the oppressors being simplified - well, you're right, it's not their story. If you want their story, you can turn on the news. You can see Tobocman's exclusion of it as propaganda - and that's a valid interpretation. But so is the interpretation that Tobocman is a prolific artist with limited resources and he's not interested in using those resources to tell stories that are already ingrained in most peoples' consciousness...es.
Blah. You seem a bit defensive, and that makes me sad, because I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm not even trying to be argumentative. I just honestly like Tobocman's work and I know precious few other people who both a) have ever read a comic of his ever and b) are totes up for in-depth analysis of work just because they think it's NEAT. So when that happens I am like "FUCK YES LET'S GO RIGHT NOW."
I don't mean to be confrontational. Just eager! And perhaps a bit contradictory, because that's how I roll.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-25 05:48 am (UTC)And I mean, if you'll recall, Tobocman also draw devil horns on himself. His work is heavy on visual symbolism because using signifiers like that is an effective way of portraying complex concepts in simple yet evocative ways - it's a propaganda tactic, but does that make it propaganda? The goal of propaganda is to tell people what to think, usually through oversimplifying things and obfuscating the truth. Tobocman's work does the opposite - it points out the complexities that are often overlooked by mainstream media sources, and brings attention to the realities of situations that we usually only see one side of - the side with enough money to get their side told.
Also, as to the role of the oppressors being simplified - well, you're right, it's not their story. If you want their story, you can turn on the news. You can see Tobocman's exclusion of it as propaganda - and that's a valid interpretation. But so is the interpretation that Tobocman is a prolific artist with limited resources and he's not interested in using those resources to tell stories that are already ingrained in most peoples' consciousness...es.
Blah. You seem a bit defensive, and that makes me sad, because I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm not even trying to be argumentative. I just honestly like Tobocman's work and I know precious few other people who both a) have ever read a comic of his ever and b) are totes up for in-depth analysis of work just because they think it's NEAT. So when that happens I am like "FUCK YES LET'S GO RIGHT NOW."
I don't mean to be confrontational. Just eager! And perhaps a bit contradictory, because that's how I roll.