Perhaps this is just the perception of New York publications. I find the idea that "since he's dead, he's erased" to be a bit troubling. You?
Thursday, May 12, 2011
The Rise of Eraser Aesthetics
When I think the "Eraser," I think of Arnold. Recently though, there's been a common perspective on the assassination of Osama bin Laden.
Perhaps this is just the perception of New York publications. I find the idea that "since he's dead, he's erased" to be a bit troubling. You?
Perhaps this is just the perception of New York publications. I find the idea that "since he's dead, he's erased" to be a bit troubling. You?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
i find it fitting to turn the metaphor on the paper itself, where "erasing" only damages the foundation further. here, the stain is obvious and we're embarrassed. yet making something outta nothing — or in this case, a whole lotta nothing — i could detect a sustainable sense of progress . . . layers upon layers of ascending history, like trees.
Didn't someone comment on this before blogger started fumbling?
twas i . . . i like to turn the metaphor onto the paper itself, the idea where erasing only further destroys (layer upon layer) the foundations at which we inherently depend. here, the imprint (or scar) is obvious, and embarrassedly so. journalistically, the "erase" is both fitting and truthful. politically — or opportunistically — the erase is ignorant and insulting.
to be so bold as to build on top of whatever one might have is an american ideal the jibber-jabbering heads of this culture have long since forgotten.
Though the New Yorker cover appears somewhat cliche, and doesn't have the benefit of being "iconic" (unlike Time's cover "X"), I still see the metaphor as fitting in more way than one.
Osama had been burnt into the psyche of most Americans (the picture to begin with), and he was erased from the earth... He was "rubbed out." It's not like he just passed away, he was assassinated by high-tech guns. Maybe it's the idea that, even though we won't have to worry about Bin Laden anymore, as hard as you try to erase him from memory, you can still kinda see him... Better get the paint... Then what would the paint mean?
The more I think of it the more I think it's just a "safe" magazine cover.
I mean, you can't draw a picture of Bin Laden's face with two bullet holes on put it on newstands. (Bloody Mess Monthly could though) What else are you going to put on the cover - Donald Trump?
"as hard as you try to erase him from memory, you can still kinda see him."
I hadn't thought of it that way. I hope that was their intention.
I think the straight metaphor of just erasing him from the earth is a cheap one. And I disagree with the notion that killing him was the best case outcome. As we talked about, they should have brought him back alive.
I am almost drawn to an idea out of 1984 (does anyone remember reading that in high school?). The main character's job, Winston, is to erase people from written records and literally revise history so that people who go against the government are "vaporized" from the annuls of history. Ironically, he works at the Ministry of Truth.
Perhaps there is a kind of tongue-in-cheek thing going on here, as Matt alluded to - this idea that America is attempting to control the perception and recording of history so that killing one person, erasing them from the earth, some how rewrites history and re-frames it as a victory rather than a boondoggle. Thoughts?
In other words, I think there is a lot more to this than just the straight forward erase/kill metaphor.
Obviously there are practicality issues, but I think capturing ObL facilitates a more progressive dialog than ... revenge. All sorts of issues like "the death penalty" come to mind. It's not the idea of putting him through a trial and then sentencing him, but rather isolating him from society that is attractive - and not in any sort of caged animal, freak show way. There are people out there that view his death in celebration. To die a martyrdom is a positive outcome. We did a very good job of reinforcing that while also delivering "justice."
Sure... that is what Obama would say. But do you really believe he is not a martyr because of what Obama says? Why not quote someone who supports ObL? There's nothing about Obama's statement that doesn't make sense, but it also does little to challenge the thought process of how many people feel about ObL. What about the people who agree that violent extremism is a valid option? Do we satisfy our desire for justice with revenge just because we disagree with their philosophy? What I'm trying to say is, to ObL and those like him, he was a success - being assassinated is a perfectly respectable ending to that type of life. We pandered to that. At some point we're going to have come up with other options besides exerting force. If that involves some level of humility, than so be it. I'm fairly certain traditional warfare and battle tactics have proved less than ample in defeating the philosophy of violent extremism.
I wonder how the other extremists feel about the outcome. It's squeamish to beg the question, but WWJhaveDone?
I really only posted the quote because Obama literally just made that statement.
Did OBL die a martyr? It seemed more like he died trying to stay hidden, not nearly as righteous as I think he'd hoped he'd go out. Couldn't even take someone with him in the final moments.
I agree that "traditional warfare and battle tactics have proved less than ample in defeating the philosophy of violent extremism." This was Bush's error. He shouldn't have sent an entire army to occupy the region and enflame the people who live there. Targeting assasinations should have been the strategy all along! POW! POW!
Post a Comment