Writes Dan Brooks in a NYT article, "Banksy and the Problem With Sarcastic Art." You may not want any help deciding what to think about Banksy's "Dismaland," but, midway through, the discussion becomes "Sarcasm is our kitsch" and the problem with internet sarcasm — the derisive tone of satire without the complex irony.
Brooks gives an example from Wonkette: “George Kornec and Phil Nappo have a mining claim on federal land; they’ve put up a garage and a fence, and the dastardly government is pushing its weight around and being a big bully and being really terrible and stuff by telling Kornec and Nappo to take them down.” Writing like is completely lazy, leaning on the assumption that the reader will already agree that Kornec and Nappo are bad and the government's good.
There’s no insight here to raise this irony to the level of satire. There is only mockery, backed by certainty that the reader shares the author’s contempt. Sarcasm is a natural fit for partisan news aggregators, because it relies on a calculated appeal to shared attitudes.As I read Brooks's observations, I'm thinking that the problem is that people are now finding comfort in sarcasm. But sarcasm should feel bad. It should heighten your awareness of what's not right. Now, what can make you aware of what's wrong with low-quality sarcasm? You need to feel revulsion for the sarcasm, not short-cut into the contempt that the sarcasm nudges you to feel.
Kitsch banks heavily on these shared attitudes. It substitutes them for artistic insights, and it relies on its audience’s agreement with them to produce a feeling similar to profundity. Sarcasm works best when people already know what you mean.
Posts
34 comments:
Snark and sarcasm are popular because they're easy and because they deny any legitimacy to the target. It's not even worth the effort of proper satire. Plus it's easy and those emloying it are generally lazy and wanting intellectual affirmation they can't earn.
"I'm thinking that . . . It should . . . You need"
Look, to be unsarcastically unironic, you appear to be trying to apply neutral standards to pseudo-political discourse. Nice and quaint of you, but ain't no such thing. If sarcasm serves a Prog purpose, it's good; if not, bad. Who needs wit when Wonkette will do?
Sincerity is the best sarcasm. One must be the thing that one ridicules.
Snark, like camp, is just preening.
Sarcasm.
Literaly,
to cut flesh.
Rachel Maddow's schtick is the prime example of sarcasm without irony. How the lip curl sneer and knowing eyebrow keep any audience is beyond my ken.
Sarcasm is the lingua franca of people who have lost faith that things will get better.
I am Laslo.
Sarcasm is a natural fit for partisan news aggregators, because it relies on a calculated appeal to shared attitudes.
Snark is not about any form of explanation. It's about quickly identifying oneself as being on the right side of an us versus them divide. Just like having one's bowler hat & pocket hanky set just so would mark you as being of the right class of people, snark, at the proper targets, of course, marks you as being an intelligent person who's on the right side of history.
I suspect some people are coming to the realization that they've hit the point of diminishing returns as far as snark goes. Over use is killing it's effectiveness as people become inured to it.
Now, what can make you aware of what's wrong with low-quality sarcasm? You need to feel revulsion for the sarcasm, not short-cut into the contempt that the sarcasm nudges you to feel.
Yeah, sure.
I searched the article for "Stewart" and "Colbert" and came up with 0 hits. I know it's about art, but if we're talking about the broad use and limits of snark I don't think you can leave those two out. The Daily Show was (in the last 10 years or so anyway) not much more than a snark-fest, and due to that actively discouraged critical thought. It wasn't "here is this issue, here is this person's take on the issue, they're wrong for this comical reason," it was more "this person belongs to this team, we all already know that team is crazy/wrong/stupid/evil, let's laugh at them." The Daily Show and the Colbert Report are very popular with younger people, and (online at least) it seems like the default mode of engagement you see w/r/t political issues from young people is reflexive snark.
I bought Wall and Piece, his collection of graffiti art.
The funny thing is that as art it's actually conservative bordering on reactionary. It's purely representational, uses bold colors, and means what it says. It's something you could paint on a wall and make the wall better looking than before.
It poses as a critique of society, but the critique is banal -- you could buy greeting card with the same sentiments. One of the hallmarks (Hallmarks?) of middle class conformity is pretending that you're utterly opposed to middle class conformity, and would get right on with the violent revolution if this frappucino weren't so delicious.
There was a time when starving artists would cut off their ears to avoid lackadaisical sarcasm.
Ignoring the sarcasm angle, I don't know how much Banksy stands out from the larger universe of street art.
https://goo.gl/PkdpwN is a link to a simple Google search for Berlin street art. Friedrichshain and Kreuzberg in particular have loads of it. If you were trying to place Banksy's work in the context of the rest of the work on that page, I think you'd put it squarely in the middle, or maybe a little lower. When you get right down to it, Banksy is mostly monochrome silhouettes plus captions. A lot of the Berlin work is more colorful, grotesque, provocative, original -- you name it. And that's not even touching classics like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_God,_Help_Me_to_Survive_This_Deadly_Love
which is provocative, original, visually arresting, and political without being cliched.
Whoa: "One of the hallmarks (Hallmarks?) of middle class conformity is pretending that you're utterly opposed to middle class conformity, and would get right on with the violent revolution if this frappucino weren't so delicious."
Splendid.
Most of what is called Art is crap, and does not deserve to succeed. Still, some of it does. I have a nice little drawing that I bought 40 years ago because it appealed to me with its humor and its relevance to my job at the time.
Sarcasm is the lingua franca of people who have lost faith that things will get better.
I disagree Lazlo. Sarcasm is the lingua franca of people who have been disillusioned, yes, but if you didn't think that things could get better you wouldn't bother mocking the mainstream, you'd just turn your back on it. The reason I love Wonkette is because it makes me laugh about things that would otherwise make me cry.
One of the hallmarks (Hallmarks?) of middle class conformity is pretending that you're utterly opposed to middle class conformity
"Épater la bourgeoisie" est bourgeois.
Brooks simply does not understand British humor. Might have a better idea if he went there sometime.
Jumped the snark.
Sarcasm can be used in a lot of ways. Mark Twain, for example, was a master.
But sarcasm now is just tribalism. You can simultaneously signal what tribe you are with while flinging feces at the other tribe. It's become one of the default modes of discourse, the others being "oh look at what they're doing that they totally don't agree with in another context" and faux outrage.
Most of the sarcasm these days amounts to impersonating the voice and expressions of your political opposite in a slightly exaggerated way to prove indisputably what a complete idiot he must be.
Two popular examples are, from the right, Liberal Chick:
"Bruce Jenner's braver than soldiers who murder innocent Muslims."
And, from the left, Stephen Colbert:
"The pen is mightier than the sword, if you shoot that pen out of a gun."
Howdy folks
Frequent Wonkette commenter here
A few brief questions, if you'll permit
1) When we are moved to be sarcastic, what do you suggest we do instead? Just stay quiet and let the grownups talk? Or perhaps write world-class works of world literature like candide which are witty and not sarcastic (or are they witty and sarcastic at the same time? so confusing)
2) What constitutes the difference between wit and sarcasm? Or do you just "know it when you see it"?
3) Did you call our mommies and daddies and get their permission to lecture us on tone?
Seriously, how will the internet survive without the NY times and Althouse keeping all the sarcasm in check? I have to call al gore and get him to thank you guys personally for your efforts.
Very sorry if this was too sarcastic, I apologize if any sensibilities were injured.
Best of luck
Another frequent Wonkette commenter here.
My take on sarcasm on the site is that it is rooted in frustration in having any kind of reasonable conversation with the Right.
Take, for example, global warming; the physical evidence is coming in by the ton: melting glaciers and ice caps, record floods and fires, high temperature records being set at 10 times the rate of cold temperature records, etc, etc. It is a matter that threatens our civilization and our species. Yet the Right, rather than engaging in any kind of discourse about how to ameliorate this oncoming disaster, chooses instead to deny the reality that stands before them.
How does one have meaningful discussions with the insane?
Heya faux
We don't need these peoples permission to be sarcastic. The fact that they think we do would be adorable if it wasnt so disgustingly condescending.
Bill Clinton fired missiles inside a foreign country and killed people, but not the ones supposedly aimed at, to avoid news coverage for less than one day about his affair with a White House intern. And his party decided to keep him in office.
Sarcasm? Irony? They no longer exist. All that exists are the ashes of a former republic.
@Joe:2) What constitutes the difference between wit and sarcasm? Or do you just "know it when you see it"?
Sarcasm is the use of irony to express contempt. Wit is being funny and clever. Sarcasm may be witty or may not be. Wit may be sarcastic and may not be. Sarcasm is always ironic but irony is not always sarcasm.
Revealing, that you that no one could possible tell the difference; a bit like Michael Bay being unable to distinguish a plot from a series of special effects.
There's something like 2500 years of Western literature and all sorts of rhetorical and literary forms exist that you probably have never heard of which have been given names and definitions, look them up.
The level of stupid in this thread is mindblowing. You are all a bunch of humorless twats with a false sense of your own superiority, including the author of the post.
Sarcasm is the use of irony to express contempt. Wit is being funny and clever. Sarcasm may be witty or may not be.
So your point ("point"?) is that if it's not funny it's just sarcasm with no wit? Should I submit all my public speech to The Friars Club for pre-approval?
Revealing, that you thought that no one could possible tell the difference
I try not to think - I prefer to keep my brain in factory condition. Saves on the warranty service.
like Michael Bay being unable to distinguish a plot from a series of special effects
I thought that was sarcastic but unfunny, which means you are contributing to the problem. See? So easy even a blog commenter can do it.
that you probably have never heard of
Exactly, so the first thing I did was bring up candide
@fromlaurelstreet
superiority
Its based on a times article, so goes with the territory
@Joe:I thought that was sarcastic but unfunny,
You thought wrong. There was no irony in what I was saying: I did not intend it to be understood as meaning the opposite of what I said. Michael Bay really cannot tell the difference. I didn't find it to be a funny statement either. I meant it in a plonkingly descriptive way, like "water is wet".
"Funny", like "witty" or "clever", may be a characteristic of some sarcasm but not all. "Irony", however, is required.
You don't even know what sarcasm actually is. First you express incredulity that anyone could distinguish it from wit, second you criticize a statement of mine as bad sarcasm when it's not even sarcasm at all. And the more you talk about it the more you reveal your lack of understanding.
Exactly, so the first thing I did was bring up candide
Good that you know one title from before this century. That's not evidence that you've read Candide or even the Spark notes, much less did what I suggested: look up the rhetorical and literary devices of the last 2500 of the Western canon and try to learn something about them.
Or you can decide to stay at the level of 'cool story bro', 'tl; dr', and 'herp derp'. It all depends on if you are trying to persuade someone to your point of view, or if you just want to fling feces at them since they are not the same monkey as you.
I meant it in a plonkingly descriptive way
Then I guess you're worse off than I thought.
you express incredulity that anyone could distinguish it from wit
No, I express incredulity that _you_ could distinguish it from wit. To be perfectly fair, I would have to get to know somebody very, very well before I decide to take their advice on the topic. Even my father I don't always agree with. Certainly I will not be lectured on the subject by anyone here because...
you are trying to persuade someone to your point of view, or if you just want to fling feces at them since they are not the same monkey as you.
I don't believe in the possibility of persuading anyone here of anything because I consider the author of the ny times piece, the author of the blog post, and others (yourself included) to be epistemically closed. Strongest evidence for this is your belief that what I am doing bears any relation to a formal argument, or that the two alternatives are formal argument and feces-flinging.
@Joe:I don't believe in the possibility of persuading anyone here of anything because I consider the author of the ny times piece, the author of the blog post, and others (yourself included) to be epistemically closed. Strongest evidence for this is your belief that what I am doing bears any relation to a formal argument, or that the two alternatives are formal argument and feces-flinging.
Remember when we were children, and we would repeat back the words of someone we didn't like with a lisp and limp wrist, or we would make farting sounds when they read their book report out loud in front of the class?
This is what you are doing. At least you are open enough to acknowledge it.
Incidentally "epistemic closure" is when everything that is possible to be known can be derived from a subset of it. It's not a fancy word for "closed minded" and people cannot be "epistemically closed" any more than a sunrise can be leather.
It's not a fancy word for "closed minded" and people cannot be "epistemically closed" any more than a sunrise can be leather.
Thanks for proving my point - you are in fact "epistemically closed" about "epistemic closure"
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Epistemic_closure#Epistemic_closure
If you feel a burning desire to rejoin that this is non-standard usage consult your mental health professional - English has no Academie Francaise, and that body has no enforcement powers.
At least you are open enough to acknowledge it
Quote on that please
@Joe:cool story bro
Post a Comment