Po-Mo Pop-Eye
just as there are two sides to every schwartz, so goes post-modernism. there has been many discussions over what we as a culture have gained and lost by sacrificing our signs and symbols and by erasing an object's significance. madonna has long been a purveyor of such petulance; from her "like a virgin" video to being crucified on her current tour no judeo-christian iconography gets off easy.
speaking as an atheist, i think what she does is marvelous. by weakening a symbol it questions faith and the supporting religion. therefore calling into question ones own beliefs, which the church does not do enough of.
the "is nothing sacred" argument is exhausted. so today's sermon (if i am permitted to employ such a word) focuses on the non-sacred being used in a post-modern, revisionist manner. images that are appropriated later to represent something new entirely. these images are utilized mainly on t-shirts: a cultural movement's litmus test.
as "bling" has invaded our culture, there has been a growing number of shirts depicting cartoon characters from yesteryear blinging. notably popeye (I've seen image at right a half dozen times). why popeye i must ask? his cultural value has plummeted since his peak in the 1970s, and he was a poor old sailor man. what about scrooge mcduck? yes he was an aristocrat, but he literally swam in a pool of gold! he may not have had the ripped forearms, but he has a bulldozer to move his coinage!
and then there is this revisionist image of michael jordan (right. literally titled "michaeljordanblingbling.jpg" when i pulled it from a site). he's wearing his six championship rings, which he won with the chicago bulls. whereas this image was intended to be a display of jordan's victories and prowess on the court, the image is now courted as a symbol of his wealth. the meaning behind the rings is insignificant. it's the wearing and flaunting that has been deemed paramount. forget the accomplishments, let's see the ice! (I suppose the same can be said of an engagement ring.)
but i saw the clincher this morning as a woman was ambling toward me wearing this on her chest (recreated):
it was a bit disconcerting to see ol' ernesto subjected to the same treatment as, well, señor frog. i wasn't offened. just reminded that any image can be dissassociated with it's original and intended meaning, especially when t-shirt sales are involved.
speaking as an atheist, i think what she does is marvelous. by weakening a symbol it questions faith and the supporting religion. therefore calling into question ones own beliefs, which the church does not do enough of.
the "is nothing sacred" argument is exhausted. so today's sermon (if i am permitted to employ such a word) focuses on the non-sacred being used in a post-modern, revisionist manner. images that are appropriated later to represent something new entirely. these images are utilized mainly on t-shirts: a cultural movement's litmus test.
as "bling" has invaded our culture, there has been a growing number of shirts depicting cartoon characters from yesteryear blinging. notably popeye (I've seen image at right a half dozen times). why popeye i must ask? his cultural value has plummeted since his peak in the 1970s, and he was a poor old sailor man. what about scrooge mcduck? yes he was an aristocrat, but he literally swam in a pool of gold! he may not have had the ripped forearms, but he has a bulldozer to move his coinage!
and then there is this revisionist image of michael jordan (right. literally titled "michaeljordanblingbling.jpg" when i pulled it from a site). he's wearing his six championship rings, which he won with the chicago bulls. whereas this image was intended to be a display of jordan's victories and prowess on the court, the image is now courted as a symbol of his wealth. the meaning behind the rings is insignificant. it's the wearing and flaunting that has been deemed paramount. forget the accomplishments, let's see the ice! (I suppose the same can be said of an engagement ring.)but i saw the clincher this morning as a woman was ambling toward me wearing this on her chest (recreated):
it was a bit disconcerting to see ol' ernesto subjected to the same treatment as, well, señor frog. i wasn't offened. just reminded that any image can be dissassociated with it's original and intended meaning, especially when t-shirt sales are involved.
posted by citizen andrew at 4:29 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home