The Betrayal of Images

Margitte’s famous painting, “The Betrayal of Images”, reminds us that whenever we view media we must consider it semiotically. That is, we are at our greatest fault as interpreters when we mistake the image of something for reality itself. Thus, the figure on Margitte’s canvas is not a pipe; it is a representation that resembles a universal pipe we have collectively stored in our minds. To claim that it is a pipe borders on the ludicrous; yet how many times do we mistakenly consider what appears on our screen as actual, tangible and real? How quickly do we have to remind ourselves that the image is merely a representation of reality?

If Miley Cyrus appears on television, should the image be accompanied by a caption that reads, “This is not a girl”? Or if a montage from the local news provides us with imagery from a battle in Afghanistan, should the screen include, “This is not a war”? Hidden below each image is an unseen army of producers, lighting equipment and carefully crafted shots that help hone what we come to believe is reality- but to quote Paul Tillich, to mistake the symbol for the thing it points itself beyond to is little more than idolatry.

Perhaps most frightening about television, film and web saturated media is its ability to convince us that what we are viewing is reality, that the lines between the production of art and the thing it wishes to represent are vanishing and we as viewers are continually situating ourselves smack dab in the middle. What are the consequences of this blurring, when we can’t tell the difference between what is real and what is manufactured?

What are the consequences for our children and our students who don’t know that this is not a person, this is not a role model, this is not a war, this is not a wrestling match, this is not a size zero, this is not a police officer, this is not a slave owner, this is not a pipe?

Robert

Watch Barkley’s NIKE ad

Basketball player Charles Barkley’s famous dictum, “Just because I dunk a basketball doesn’t mean I should raise your kids”, continues to provoke controversy, not in its literal sense (to which most would agree) but rather in its sentiment that athletes are not heroes, that sports figures should receive no more adulation than anyone, and that it is principally wrong to hold professional athletes to a standard beyond what we hold the average person. Charles Barkley may have been arrested for a variety of reasons, some violent, he may have accrued massive debts due to gambling, and he may say things that insight fervent discussion, but he has said upfront, clearly and unequivocally, that he is not a role model.

Does this admission, however, relinquish him from a public responsibility as a role model?

This persistent ideal of ‘public athlete as public hero’ returned to the airwaves this past week when victorious Canadian female hockey players celebrated their gold medal victory over the Americans with beers and cigars on the ice. Some have argued that even though the celebration occurred after the stadium had cleared, the women were somehow in violation of an unwritten code of “role models” and as such acted inappropriately. Others countered that they are all women of legal drinking age celebrating in a manner common to hockey. Furthermore, others have noted there seems to be double standard at work- Jon Montgomery, a Canadian skeleton medalist, celebrating his win by pounding back a pitcher of Canadian lager, yet there was no public outcry. But Montgomery is also an adult who is legally able to drink a beer. Does his action somehow diminish his position as a role model?

Why do we continue to idealize athletes as though their ability to perform on the field, the rink, and the track somehow indicates a moral superiority or valorization? Athletes maintain a special place in the public discourse as the embodiment of the “noblest” and best of human achievement- consider briefly the rhetoric of the Olympic games and what this kind of friendly competition can ennoble. Why does this mythology of good athlete/ good person persist?

The Hip Hop Symposium is from 7-9pm on Thursday, and you will be given 5% extra credit for class if you attend and do a blog on the evening. There will be performances and it should be quite fantastic.

See you Monday

Unless you’ve been living under a large rock for the past week, you’re probably privy to the sorted details of Tiger Woods’ private life, public indiscretions and recent apology on national television. As a number of commentators have mentioned, the world came to a virtual standstill this past Friday as the planet’s most famous athlete and highest paid celebrity publically apologized to his wife, his family and his business partners (though not in that order) for what was essentially a series of extramarital affairs.

Tiger Woods\' full apology

The discussion here today is not to bandy about the morality of Tiger’s actions (I’m not sure anyone would argue that he was in the right) but rather to consider what Tiger Woods owes the world in light of his private affairs. Why does an individual need to apologize in public, on national (and international) television for a private matter? Why do we, as his adoring public, feel he owes us an apology? Given that millions of men have affairs and few have to reveal to the world their indiscretions (unless they’re the governor of South Carolina…), is it ludicrous that we expect him to spill the sorted details of his life for public scrutiny?

Tiger Woods has received a lot from us. He is the world’s wealthiest athlete. He is universally famous. He has become a powerful voice. Does he consequently owe the public a debt of obligation to explain himself in these times? Or do we label our obsession over the details of his affairs and the intricacies of his marriage as little more than voyeurism? Can a private matter be simply that: private?

Robert LeBlanc

No one is attacking your loves and interests, we are attempting to think…something that is seldom taught in schools.

For the break, you are to watch some of the Olympics…the purpose is to analyze the language used in describing the participants. Specifically, how is language used for males and for females? Is there a difference? What about the few athletes who are not “white?” Is there discussion involved in their “difference?” How is Canada discussed in the Olympics? And, most recently, what is the discussion about First Nations/Aboriginal people during the Olympics? As we discussed in class, Canada made the First Nations performers up front and then put in the back….is this being done during the games? Is there a Native presence at the games? Bring these remarks to class on March 1st. Make sure your names are on the paper. Don’t expect to find “anything,” just listen and observe. What are ads used during the Olympics? Is there anything discussed about Canada’s future after the Olympics? Will the Olympics help Canadians in any tangible ways?

Also…..in regard to March 4th, from 7-9PM, that is our Hip Hop Conference. It is geared to students in education, and I think you will enjoy it. If you attend, and then do a blog on it, you will receive 5 extra points….or, you can skip one blog, and get the 5 points. NOTE, you still must blog on this conference. Meaning that your total possible points for the class would be 105 out of 100. Email me if this is not clear.

FOR BLOGS: Yes, you blog this week. On the topic of your choice, I suggest the Olympics, and your impressions. Check out this video for thought on the opening ceremonies…