Cherry Guevara [a popsiscle] and other examples of what could be called Che abuse are now on display at the International Center of Photography in midtown Manhattan for an exhibition titled "¡Che! Revolution and Commerce."...I know a lot of people get really mad about all the Che imagery. This article takes the attitude that the runaway popularization actually defeats Che's politics. Revolution is processed into rebelliousness. Are we supposed to feel good about the way our culture drains serious meaning out of things?
The exhibit works, too, as an object lesson in the power -- and on some level, the formidable beauty -- of market economies, which can absorb and commodify anything, even their bitterest enemies. Today, there are dozens of Web sites selling stuff with Korda's Che shot emblazoned on it....
In the United States, Che's life story and ambitions seem beside the point, or maybe they've just been reduced to caricature. The guy's face is shorthand for "I'm against the status quo." He's politics' answer to James Dean, a rebel with a very specific cause. And since very few people know anything about the cause, or the rebel -- besides the basics -- the Che shirt has about it the whiff of inside info. It makes you part of the thrift-store intelligentsia, even if your real focus is beer pong.
This, in brief, is why capitalism won. It's the only system that understands that we'd all like to change the world, but we are way too lazy for that sort of thing. Especially if there's ice cream around. When you get done with a Cherry Guevara, you're left with a wooden stick with the words "We will bite to the end!" stamped on it. If there are nails in Che's coffin, this, no doubt, is what they look like.
I'm trying to think of a way to connect this story to the current insanity around the depiction of Mohammad in cartoons. If one has an important character at the center of a political or religious movement, will the propagation or the suppression of his image serve your cause better? Should you want to propagate but control the image, so that it's presented on your terms, with the prescribed elements of reverence (nails pounded into flesh, yes, submersed in urine, no)? And if you oppose a political or religious movement, what is the more powerful move, suppressing the image -- stop showing that Che picture! -- or diluting it with ridiculous over-reproduction?
Posts
15 comments:
¡Tengo una remera del Che y no sé por qué!
http://yellowfeatherinherhair.blogspot.com/2005/12/che-day-keeps-critics-at-bay.html
"It's the only system that understands that we'd all like to change the world, but we are way too lazy for that sort of thing."
I would disagree with his analysis. Truth be told, most people in capitalist countries are very satisfied with their lives. We don't see people emigrating from the US to Cuba, for all Cuba's superior, sanctimonious revolution talk. People in America also do indeed change the world by their generosity and by working for the Peace Corps, NGOs that fix cleft palates in Mexico, innoculate children in the Congo, plant trees in AFrica (my cousin's grad school project)... Despite its sins and its kitsch, democracy/capitalism is still the best game in town if you're seeking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
MSM, get over it!
There's a restaurant in Knoxville called "Chez Guevara"
So many connections here. Ann, you're right to connect this to the cartoon debate and one might further connect it to christiandom's reaction to the Buddy Jesus and Bobblehead Jesus and Jesus is My Pal Tshirt phenomenons.
But I want to further make a connection to the War on Drugs. Supressing illegal substances has made them more valuable and I think the author is right to suggest that suppressing Che's image might also have made it more valuable. But if you free it up it takes away the power and mystique that it held.
Wow, that's totally disjointed. I need an editor.
These cubans take a different view of Che
http://www.therealcuba.com/MurderedbyChe.htm
In many of these cases it just seems to be image/idol worship and there is a disconnect from the ideas/philosophy of the person represented. Religions are as bad as any at this. Famous people do it to themselves.
I couldn't help feeling that way watching the several thousand young people jumping up and down and waving their arms while the Stones performed at the Super Bowl.
Yeah, you really can't get no satisfaction can you?
If he wasn't hot, there would be no cult of Che.
I remember once reading an interview with Mel Brooks. He was asked about why he, a Jew, would make a movie featuring a musical based on the life of Hitler. His reply was something to the effect that only by making a monster like Hitler into a joke could the monster's mystique be defeated. I have to see if I can find that interview or the direct quote.
It's true most people who wear the image of Che do it without any real understanding of his murderous history (and the disastrous failure of his policies). It's kinda sad.
Gaius: We need Mel Brooks to talk about those Muhammad cartoons! Maybe the fear of ridicule makes sense.
Well, here's a more modern article with Brooks' viewpoint pretty well spelled out.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/doubleissue/heroes/brooks.htm
nails pounded into flesh, yes, submersed in urine, no....
Ugh! Who wants to submerse nails in urine anyway? What's the point?!
I'd love to see Mel take that one on. He'd be brilliant. And I think his take on this is right. Deprive them of their rhetoric and symbolism, expose the absurdities and they lose their power.
Sadly, I don't think some of the folks involved would take it well.
Oh lord - funniest verification ever: xgoii
That's hysterical.....
Well, in the "nothing new under the sun" department, it seems Roger Simon had a very similar take on the cartoon mess.
http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2006/02/calling_mel_bro.php
Post a Comment