Commentative art has changed dramatically in America since the end of World War II. Of course, that is not a particularly bold statement as over the course of 70 years just about everything has changed. Technology has advanced tremendously, effecting everyday life as well as major events around the world. Social norms and behaviors are vastly different than they were in the 1990’s and early 2000s, let alone the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. A countless number of examples can be listed here, chief among them being political satire and its effect on American democracy, itself.
Satire today, in all of its many forms, from political cartoons, to movies, to stand-up comedy, seem to place a greater emphasis on amusement and laughter than in past decades. What do these changes in how political humor is crafted and disseminated reflect, an alteration in the art form or the culture? In the artist or the audience? Additionally, how do these changes affect how we as citizens engage with political conversation and, ultimately, with American democracy, itself?
Laughter inherently makes people feel good and happy, so could the laughter caused by satire create a false sense of security among its audience or does the ability of satirists to reframe difficult and controversial issues as jokes finally make them accessible? Is satire providing useful information or deterring serious consideration of weighty issues? With the steady decline of straight journalistic sources and outlets, such as magazines and newspapers, and the increase of social media platforms, has it become necessary for satire to simply adapt to the abbreviated methodologies of contemporary communication?
Ultimately, one must ask what is the role of art and satire in modern America? In the current iteration of the republic, it is important for American citizens, for example, to stay informed in order to recognize when government officials and corporations may seek to restrict personal freedoms and create mindless consumerism while protecting the elite and disregarding marginalized populations. So how does contemporary satire—in particular, art as satire—affect this? Does it seek to convey information, reveal corruption, and promote positive change? Or is its focus on entertainment, making fun of politicians and public figures with no political outcome whatsoever?
Specifically, does satire encourage participation in American democracy as suggested by research occurring over the past decade? Or does it ignore the issues at hand, thereby contributing to the creation of a passive audience and disengaged population? After all, with the commodification of radicalized creative candor, it appears that both the radicalism and candor have been replaced by a more marketable substitute: the snark of defeated cynicism, a pissed off and wholly aware, though impotent, victim of elite overreach being much sexier than a dim-witted, compliant and complacent one.
Lots to discuss. Let’s get to it.
