Yesterday I posted an article about Art Young, faith, and humor. As I mentioned, the article was originally commissioned for Ryan Standfest’s upcoming anthology on black humor.
Unfortunately, Ryan decided he couldn’t use my essay in his book. I found his reasons, and his responses, interesting and thoughtful. I asked Ryan if he’d let me reprint his email discussion of the essay, of humor, and of Art Young, and he very gracefully agreed. Below are his most substantial emails to me on the subject. (I have not included my responses, which are unwieldy since they include revised versions of the essay. Instead I figured I could talk about our differences a little in comments if there seems to be an interest.)
____________________
Hello Noah–
Yes, I’ve read your article, and I’ve actually been wrestling with the direction it took. I must confess that as an atheist I am struggling with the connection you propose between faith and humor. The confusion for me lay primarily in the use of language, I think, that makes use of the concept of “faith” or “belief” in relation to theological matters, rather than finding a more secular use of such concepts in power structures– not necessarily in religion (or the concept of “god,” “evil” or “heaven.”)
At the start of the piece, you had me hooked with regard to the containment or reproach of power and power structures through the use of humor. I think the article is VERY STRONG up until the paragraph that begins with “Yet it wouldn’t be correct to say that Young eschewed faith.” It was with your juxtaposition of the words of the apostle Paul with an image of Young’s, where the piece heads into a territory that I find unconvincing. The juxtaposition feels a bit like an imposition to me, in order to arrive at a final paragraph that states positions that I am not sure I entirely agree with, nor see any evidence to support.
I think it is fair to say that humor may not prevent or deter tyranny (I am intentionally avoiding an abstract and far-ranging concept such as “evil” here), but it certainly puts it and abusive power structures into a context that weakens their position by means of the altering of perceptions. The statement “Humor is not anarchic liberation,” is of course a subjective and highly individualistic reading of humor that is contrary to what many others believe humor to be (see: Dada, Surrealism, the Marx Brothers). Alas, I am not convinced by the notion that you cannot have mockery without believing in something that is not mocked. I think a humorist or a satirist is perfectly capable of mocking something that he or she does not believe in and may in fact not have anything in mind to put in its place. The essence of Black Humor certainly brushes against the nihilistic concept that almost all power structures cannot be believed-in, or accepted. This is what makes it so black.
I THINK you are saying, and this is not entirely clear, that the only way to engage in ridicule or mockery is to have faith in the opposite of the structure being mocked or ridiculed? Mockery or ridicule as a positive force that builds rather than only tears down, because while it is tearing down it is simultaneously building another belief in its place? This of course is possible, but not as a general concept of humor– perhaps as a specific stratagem for some.
Was Young a Marxist? If so, what were his views on Christianity or religion in general. I am not sure how I feel about the closing sentiment in your final paragraph that he “believed that Earth could be made into Heaven.” Certainly as a Socialist, he had a vision of a society that should be pursued for the betterment of civilization. Therefore, his Inferno is about identifying the failed power structures of the present in order to arrive at that better future. Your statement “Young made Hell on Earth not to upend order,” but in fact, he IS upending one order, in order to hold up and promote another order– that which he does believe in. Hence the concept of “despair is hope,” a wonderful paradox which could provide an interesting nexus of ideas. It defines the approach of Art Young as not being nihilistic or Black Humored, but more in line with absurdist humor– not unlike Beckett, identifying the absurdity of life on earth, while believing in a better day. However, unlike Beckett, as a dyed-in-the wool Socialist with certain political affiliations/positions, Young is promoting an anti-Capitalist agenda in line with Marxist belief that will make the day better. One cannot ignore the political rather than the religious implications of Young’s Inferno.
I think this is what you are saying. If this is so, then it would be good to include such thoughts with a more secular language in addition to providing some supporting points that strongly demonstrate why Young is not taking the approach of say a Luis Bunuel, in using religious symbolism to expose the hypocrisy of power structures.
As I said, your article had me up to a certain point, and then I started to question how and why it was heading into the terrain it was. Perhaps you could help clarify some of these points for me.
__________________________________
Hello Noah,
A parade of hopefully focused thoughts:
My view is that Young was using The Inferno for its structural conceits– that it provides a handy method for a cartoonist to catalog human foibles, to address the state of the human condition here on earth. Beyond that, he did believe in a better way of life to build in place of the folly he saw which fueled his desire to mock and ridicule as a satirist. However to conflate his use of religious symbolism with his belief in a new and better future by bringing these two things under the term “faith,” places everything within a purely religious framework. Therefore, my real problem here is in how you make use of the word “faith.”
I do not believe you are incorrect in stating that artists, humorists, whomever, may be driven by ideological concerns and the belief in something. Obviously this is crucial to the creative impulse, period. It is even crucial to the destructive impulse– bombs destroy to make way for something else; terrorism is fought on the grounds of an ideological struggle. Nor do I disagree that transcendence is the basis of humor– I have long believed that humor is in fact a survival mechanism, as Freud did, that allows the self to transcend whatever the dire circumstances by constructing an alternate self.
However, to take the position that it all comes down to faith in a religious sense, which is what your article seems to be saying with its loaded use of the word “faith” and the frequent references to transcendence with a spiritual/religious connotation, tilts this away from a meaningful and more universal discourse of humor being rooted in faith in other things besides “god,” “heaven,” and the destruction of “evil”– which itself is a religious construction. In the end it isn’t so much that I disagree with your theory as to humor relating to a belief in something– it is simply that I disagree that it has to do with a belief in religious concepts. The word “faith” is a term laden with specific associations.
I think in the end, it is important for me to recognize that Young, most probably an atheist, used a text, The Inferno, itself based on Catholic/Christian conceits, to address humanist concerns first and foremost rather than looking for a theological debate on faith in the religious sense. It is the faith in those humanist concerns that I would be more interested in having a conversation about, the human survival impulse to use humor to transcend misery, than to link the practice of ridicule, satire or mockery to belief in a god figure. Satire at the end of the day is, after all, about taking the piss out of heavy-handed father figures and systems of belief (such as religion) that like to oppress. The British tradition of satire (Cruikshank, Gillray, Hogarth, Rowlandson and Swift) is the greatest example we have of a clear definition of the uses of mockery and ridicule, which in itself influenced generations of American cartoonists such as Art Young. The British in effect created the mold for the future of visual satire with a humanist bent and a deep suspicion of power structures.
Therefore, if your piece is ultimately about linking the engine of humor to the notion of religious faith, rather than a more universal application of faith in humanist concerns, then I will have to disagree and cut the piece. The religious use of faith here is simply not something I can put myself behind as I feel it is at odds with what I believe humor to be, and more importantly what the aims and concerns of Art Young himself were. I am alas not an anarchist nor a nihilist, nor do I believe that humor is even about serving the ends of nihilism or anarchy, but I do not agree with it being linked to a religious reading of the concept of faith. Can it serve ideological ends? Of course. Must all roads lead back to religion and the belief in a god or concepts such as good and evil? No.
If, however, this is not what you are saying, then perhaps the closing paragraph of your piece could provide some clarification on this point by stripping away the purely religious context to address the larger concept of ideology rather than that which is “faith-based.” I think universality is crucial to the notion of humor in this sense, rather than specificity.
Best,
Ryan
_____________________
I discovered in Young’s autobiography a cartoon he drew of FDR as Orpheus, in a “Capitalist Hell” of war, poverty, etc (p 426 if you view in Google Books). Again, I think he’s simply using the image as a tool.
I also found this quote by Young which I thought was interesting, regarding Socialism: “I think we have the true religion. If only the crusade would take on more converts. But faith, like the faith they talk about in the churches, is ours and the goal is not unlike theirs, in that we want the same objectives but want it here on earth and not in the sky when we die.”
Rs
___________________________________
Hello Noah,
I’m afraid I cannot include your piece in Black Eye. There are too many questions that remain unanswered for me.
In the end, I feel that you are imposing an idea of faith and humor on Young’s work, rather than finding it in the work itself. Nowhere in Young’s autobiography does he indicate an “obsessiveness with faith, ” in a religious sense. I also cannot support juxtaposing a caption as culled from the Bible, onto a cartoonist’s work in order to arrive at a new meaning. The juxtaposition feels more an imposition or mis-appropriation, rather than an organic outgrowth of the material. If your piece concerned itself with the concept of humor rooted in ideological belief systems, and the notion that you cannot mock without believing in something that you do not mock, then this would make more sense to me, rather than using Young’s work as a springboard to discuss the issue of humor as it relates to religion and only religion. I feel that it moves the focus away from the work itself and its true concerns, in order to prove a very personal point of view. The inclusion of the Zizek material is simply digging-in to support your idea that humor and black humor is definitely connected to religious belief.
I am ultimately not interested in an article that identifies humor in such a narrow fashion using the work of an artist whose intentions are to address socialist concerns first and foremost. In the end, I am unconvinced with the need to connect humor directly to religion and I find it veers too far away from the core subject of Art Young and his reason for doing what he did. The article seems to circle around and even avoid, by not delving deeper, into the notion of a Marxist Socialist Atheist using Christian iconography to address Socialist concerns. Surely it may be about something other than being obsessed with faith. It is entirely probable, based upon evidence, that rather than being obsessed with faith, Young used a Christian vernacular to connect with the audience of his day and wire them directly into his socialist concerns. It may very simply be a useful narrative structure, an appropriate vessel for communication, which makes sense for someone who is in fact concerned with “the masses.”
I am not opposed to initiating a discussion/examination using religious/Christian belief as a starting point to enter into a larger exploration of belief systems as they support humor, but I do not see a reason to draw all lines solely back to religion. Although you write in your email that humor or black humor is not dependent on religious faith, the thrust of the article and the language you use, seems to suggest this, which is of course an idea I cannot support or promote in a book dedicated to a more open-ended idea of humor.
Thank you for attempting such an ambitious approach. I am sorry that this did not work out. I think I was initially attracted to your very well-written and thorough original piece on Young and his work, because I found the subject to be highly relevant and worthy of discussion as it relates to today’s social concerns. Focusing on Young’s voice is a very timely endeavor– not because of his use of Christian imagery, but because of his tackling the subject of socio-economic struggle; the working-class against the ruling class, and the absurd hell that results– man against himself. I will echo Young’s own sentiments by stating that the concerns are “here on earth, not in the sky when we die.”
Regards,
Ryan
It’s a kind of weird reason to reject the piece…essentially that he doesn’t agree with it. Can’t his intro to the anthology note that he doesn’t agree with all of his contributors? Wouldn’t we assume that anyway?
I see this as a version of the parody vs. pastiche debate, a la Fredric Jameson (another Marxist, for your pleasure)– Can something be a parody without holding some external and oppositional belief? Or is it, at that point, just “pastiche” (and can something be pastiche and funny–or is parody intrinsically more humorous?)
The claim that Beckett is filled with some kind of hope is oft-claimed, but, I have to say, having read alot of Beckett…I don’t really see it, at least not in the work itself. Maybe in some kind of extratextual commentary? But, Beckett rarely engaged in interpretation of his own work and philosophy (sorry, off topic here)
I would say it doesn’t have to be an oppositional belief, exactly, but there has to be a belief in the opposer. You can’t mock without reifying mockery.
I think Ryan was perfectly justified in rejecting the piece. It’s his book and his editorial policy. It’s certainly not unusual for editors to think about content when evaluating whether they want to include a piece.
I’m disappointed to not be in the book…but I was pleased to get to write the essay, which I wouldn’t have done if he hadn’t approached me.
@ Eric:
Read the ‘Paris Review’ interview of Beckett– I believe it’s free online– he has a confrontation with some puppeteers putting on a silent play of his in which the protagonist loses all. The peppeteers tried to put a positive spin on the piece, but Beckett crushed this with these words: “No– he’s FINISHED.”
BTW, Parisian Irish I know (a surprisingly large and ancient community) tell me that Beckett was no disdainer of pleasure; he enjoyed his pub drinks and sang along with other pub denizens.
Noah– sorry, but I agree with Ryan, though I find your essay to be powerful and persuasive.
You know, the Inferno has been a satirical template for centuries. Recent examples include a Jimmy Hatlo strip (reprinted in Craig Yoe’s ‘Arf’!), and the novel ‘Inferno’ by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle.
Dante himself was in on it.
Of course, his ‘Divine Comedy’ was a devout and serious work…but he found the odd chink to work in some laughs.
Read the passages in the ‘Inferno’ on the barrators: they are hilarious, full of satire and slapstick. They even feature a fart joke!
What do you agree with Ryan about particularly?
I probably disagree with him most strongly on the assumption that humanism is a broader lens than Christianity, or than faith in general. Humanism was historically an offshoot of Christianity, in the first place. And, in the second, I doubt that there are more humanists in the world than Christians (and certainly not more than religious people in general.) Atheistic humanism is just a sect like any other; it’s wishy-washiness is simply a particular (wobbly) stance, not a more inclusive one.
The fact that Dante’s comedy had satirical elements is more a confirmation of my argument about faith and humor than a refutation of it, surely?
In aesthetics, form matters. Adopting a Christian text, for whatever reason, puts you in conversation with Christianity.
Well, no– humanism was an offshoot of Graeco-Roman paganism.
I doubt Nietzche, Camus, or Sartre would agree with your characterisation of atheistic humanism as ‘wishy-washy’!
‘In conversation with Christianity’? Yes, but I’d argue: in a trivial way. Heaven and Hell are convenient tropes for satirists of all beliefs in our culture.
I’m an atheist, but I enjoy jokes involving Heaven and Hell…and be nice, people, or I’ll tell them!
It boils down to this: was Young an atheist?
No, it doesn’t boil down to that. Zizek is an atheist. So am I for that matter. Lots of atheists have participated in theology. Young explicitly represented his Marxism in Christian terms and was aesthetically obsessed with a recognizably Christian hell throughout his life. That’s somewhat different than enjoying a joke about heaven or hell on occasion.
I think calling Nietzsche a humanist is a stretch. He believed in power, not human worth. Existentialism works better for your point…though I think Camus is actually fairly wishy washy compared to Kierkegaard, who was both an existentialist and a Christian.
Humanism had both Christian and pagan roots I guess. But the first humanists (like Erasmus) were Christians interested in classical culture. Current humanist atheism is a development of Christian protestant latitudinarianism, I think.
I will be very brief about this– as I would like to refrain from the larger conversation that may result, but in essence, the piece was not rejected on the basis of a disagreement with the author. I am more than willing to publish positions that I might not agree with. However, the position must be well-supported. Rather, the piece was rejected on the basis of not providing ample support that the position stated emerged from the facts of Young’s work and his own positions on it. In the end, I felt that Art Young’s work, and its intentions were being misused/misread by having an external theological position/framework imposed on it. This is most apparent in the use of the quote from the Apostle Paul, essentially pasted onto a gag panel to re-contextualize it. I cannot in good conscience support that as a viable means to examine the work of an artist. To essentially alter the meaning to prove a point. As I have indicated, if the piece approached the concept of faith from a larger framework– it would have been possible to relate the position more solidly to the positions of Young himself. There are many many fascinating threads in the essay– many points worthy of examination and debate. But in the end, I am concerned with a solid argument evolving from an honest representation of the artist’s intent.
Hey Ryan. Fair enough. I actually disagree that it’s wrong to juxtapose Paul and Young in that way. I’m basically having two different texts talk to each other and seeing how they fit. Comparing one Christian-informed use of humor with another seems entirely reasonable to me. It’s a leap, obviously…but I don’t think there’s anything wrong with taking leaps in an argument and seeing where they take you.
But you of course have to use your own judgment when deciding what work should go in your book. Thanks again for letting me put your views here so people can talk about them.
Oh, come on, Noah.
Dragging Zizek into this discussion? Why?
Dismissing Nietzche as a humanist? Huh?
And dismissing Camus — a man braver than you or I ever will be– as ‘wishy-washy’?
By the way, where did you get that term from? Read too many ‘Peanuts’?
In Heaven, the Englishman greets you; the Frenchman cooks for you; the Italian entertains you; and the German runs the trains.
In Hell, the Frenchman greets you; the Englishman cooks for you; the German entertains you; and the Italian runs the trains.
(Just being ‘in conversation with Christianity’, there.)
Zizek’s one of the main sources I use in the piece. He’s also an atheist who’s pretty much consumed by the nature of God. Also He’s a Marxist like Young. I shouldn’t bring him in why?
How brave one may or may not be in real life has little to do with one’s philosophical stance, as near as I can tell.
Humanism doesn’t just mean not believing in God. It generally means having a belief in liberal humanism; the belief that human beings have intrinsic worth. Nietzsche thought only the Superman had worth, more or less; he had little interest in the intrinsic wonderfulness of random individuals.
Fascists aren’t really humanists either; Marxists kind of aren’t either. It doesn’t just mean atheists.
Pingback: Tweets that mention Ryan Standfest on Art Young, Faith, and Black Humor « The Hooded Utilitarian -- Topsy.com
I was just going off Ryan’s claim in the comments (but not in the “comments”) included in the post, where he said “I disagree”—This, in fact, did seem to be the reason for rejecting the piece especially given the extended list of reasons for disagreement. For the record, I’m not so sure I agree with Noah either– but what the hell (badumbum). I know Noah didn’t publish this for me to give Ryan a hard time though, so I won’t (any more).
I have a hard time seeing Nietzsche as a humanist myself–and Sartre had to write a piece called “Existentialism is a Humanism” in order to convince people that he was (the piece was also seen by many as a betrayal of the ‘real’ existentialism he had evinced elsewhere–Being and Nothingness, etc.).
All those Beckett back covers are full of shit, I guess, but I always felt as much.
Hm. Ryan said in his comment:
This looks remarkably like the arguments the Old Historicists used to make about the various flavors of theory.
It seems to me that the piece you wrote, Noah, was in point of fact actually not “emerging from the facts of Young’s work and his own positions on it,” which may be why Ryan wasn’t convinced.
The argument you present, to me, emerges specifically from the comparison with Zizek. You were comparing two Marxist/culturalist uses of religious imagery — Young’s and Zizek’s, which you read as closely related, and illuminating aspects of Young’s humor that are less visible when the work is is examined on its own, or in its own historical and biographical context.
So this seems to be an issue not of disagreement with the thesis but rather with the method by which that thesis was developed and demonstrated.
I see your point really easily, Noah, but I’ve read a lot of Zizek, so the reading you make is really just right there for me. I probably have some quibbles, but those could have been worked out in the editorial process if the method was agreed upon. I think you may have collided with the problem that always plagues the use of post-anything theories when speaking to a general audience: they’re so counterintuitive that if you’re unfamiliar with them, they just seem wrong, or arbitrary. The burden of making the argument convincing is thus significantly greater than if you were using more intuitive source materials.
To have easily mitigated that, you’d have to have written in a much more academic style, or at least a much more explicitly theoretical one, acknowledging and spelling out the theoretical method more directly — which would slant the article away from the curious but basically general reader that I presume it was intended for.
This problem has gazillions of precedents — in literature, in the ’70s especially, all the theoretical articles were getting rejected from the journals for this very reason, to the point that people just started new journals. I guess the same thing is what prompted the art journal October: I was just reading about a case where the art historican Albert Elsen accused Rosalind Krauss of “inventing issues” in her discussion of Rodin in The Originality of the Avant-Garde. They’re of course not invented at all — they’re just not strictly historical. The same thing is the case in your piece.
I think it’s important to work on making these types of arguments fully intelligible to broad audiences of curious, intelligent people who are unfamiliar with the theoretical sources, but I also think it’s immensely, incredibly difficult.
With all due respect, what I put forth is not a “claim.” You must remember that the words of mine published here, were a series of emails that formed a conversation in which I was working out my objections in real-time, evolving my thoughts as Noah responded. My emails have not been edited or condensed into a coherent essay form. It is a complex essay, and is deserving of a multi-layered response. All of my “disagreements” connect directly to the central issue of the artist’s intent– Art Young’s work, politics, philosophy, use of humor, view of religion and how it is being interpreted. This is made clear in the final email, in which the threads of my examination are brought together. If I had the time and the inclination, I’m sure I could draw a tree in which all of these issues converge.
Caro, yes, that’s right. I was using Young (and Zizek and Niebuhr and Paul) to talk about issues of faith and humor which aren’t historical (or weren’t placed in a historical reading in this case.) I think Ryan wanted something which was more focused on elucidating Young. Thus his feeling that I wasn’t being fair to Young — though the point for me wasn’t really to be fair or not fair to Young, but to use him to talk to other people and other issues. So, for me the fact that Paul and Young are both using religion and humor to talk about justice makes the connection between them interesting and useful. For Ryan, the fact that Young wouldn’t have made that connection himself invalidates the analogy.
This is why the question of whether Young is an atheist, which is central for Ryan and Alex, isn’t much of a bother to me. I was arguing that there’s a connection between certain theological takes on Christianity and the workings of black humor, a connection which illuminates both. So whether Young saw himself as a Christian (which of course he didn’t) just doesn’t matter to me or to the argument as I see it.
It’s really my fault for not nailing down more clearly what Ryan wanted — that’s what you’re supposed to do if you’re a freelancer. But…I don’t think I really would have wanted to write that piece, and I’m really happy with this one. So I don’t have any complaints on my end. Especially since Ryan agreed to let me publish his thoughts, which I think are worth thinking about even if they’re not in a final essay form.
I see Noah’s point, as well as Ryan’s. This is one of those cases where both sides are right but are incompatible.
A precision– neither I nor anyone else has claimed humanism = atheism; that’s a straw man.
Nietzche didn’t envision the superman as a member of an elite, ruling ‘master race’; his point was that every human being should aspire to the condition of the ‘beyond-man’, in the absence of a minatory God. Camus and Sartre make a very similar argument.
Humanism was based on pagan philosophy. “Pagan” is not the same as “atheist”.
And just because one can be a humanist and a Christian at the same time– for instance, Erasmus of Rotterdam — does not imply that humanism had Christian roots. In fact, it hadn’t.
Nietzsche hated the mass though. I don’t get the sense from reading him (it’s been a while, but still) that the point was for everyone to aspire to supermanhood. Rather, the point seems to be that some people have it and most don’t and yay for those who do and fuck the rest. That really doesn’t seem to be humanism as it’s usually understood.
Humanism as it exists today absolutely has Christian roots, Alex. It comes out of protestant liberalism; ideas about god given rights, personal human dignity, natural theology, etc. Pagan philosophy as handed down to us was simmered in Christian thinking for centuries. And the fact that the earliest humanists like Erasmus were Christians is extremely relevant.
I disagree, Noah.
Humanism had its roots in the rediscovery of Pagan texts in the early Renaissance.
The humanist’s emphases on the importance of the individual, and on the importance of the material world,were antithetical to traditional Christian doctrine.
I wouldn’t characterise Erasmus as one of the ‘earliest humanists’. Bocaccio, perhaps?