visualizing a revolution: emory douglas and the black panther newspaper
in the very first paragraph, author colette gaiter writes that the black panthers can be looked at in a variety of ways, "One extreme: the Panthers were a bunch of charismatic, grandstanding violent thugs, exploiting oppressive conditions to promote their own pathological agendas, and the United States is fortunate that the FBI and police stopped them before they started a bloody civil war. The other extreme: the Black Panthers were brilliant revolutionary visionaries who tried to expand the African American civil rights struggle into an opportunity to end Western imperialism, global racism and capitalist exploitation of working people."
throughout this text, there are distinct word choices that soften or mold the content.
ex: "became receptive to the idea of armed retaliation", "harshest images simultaneously elicited revulsion at the graphic violence and attraction to the idea of effective self-defense"
in what way are the words in this article used to direct the reader? in what ways are our visual communications subject to similar bias? should there be, as we discussed in class, ethical considerations given to these things, beyond their effectiveness?
design of dissent
tony kushner (playwright of the incredible angels in america) wonders "is there a dismal history to be written of embryonic political movements aborted for want of a great graphic designer?"
we love to believe in a meritocracy, being americans, growing up with the american dream, and fed by the internet; that the best and most important things will become visible and be rewarded with success and action, but is that true? will good ideas always find their way out, or, without the guiding hands of a mythmaker/an identity-crafter/a designer, do some just fail to make?
if it's the collective recognizance of truth that makes visual dissent so effective, can the first person to observe something have that power? or must the atrocity go on long enough to be well known before dissent can emerge, given that dissent is most basically the powerless vs. the powerful?
for instance, if "every phenomenon, including language, including the language of oppression, carries within itself the seeds of its own unraveling", must those phenomena reach a certain height before they have enough weight to fall?
glaser believes that "dissent when it's at its best is fueled by empathy, and it's fueled by the idea that other people matter, and that if somebody is hurt or victimized, we are all hurt or victimized." is it true that shock often results in withdrawal, while empathy draws people into action?
