We have been studying our last body of work on political cartoons by Syrian cartoons on the conflict and preceding political turmoil. We have specifically been looking at the work of Ali Ferzat, who is considered by some to be the most prominent Middle Eastern cartoonist today.
Over the years, many uprisings in protest of authoritarian and undemocratic regimes have occured. While some have paved the way for real change, almost all of them have involved huge amounts of violence and gross abuses of power. This can be seen in Syria, which has been engaged in a civil war for the last 10 years and had been under authoritarian rule for half a decade before that. For years now, Syrians have lamented under this, resulting in the buildup culminating in the uprisings during 2011, in which Syrians voiced their frustration and suffering and lamented their lack of freedom. This is reflected in the work of Ali Ferzat, who is known as one of the most prominent Middle Eastern political cartoonists living today. His work deals directly with the abuses of power of the Syrian government, especially what occurred under Bashar al-Assad, and the violence caused by this. He seeks to not only highlight the negative effects for all of the abuses of power and violence, but also seeks to reveal leaders like al-Assad for who they are, and break down the illusions of them being all-powerful.
The first cartoon of Ferzat’s I analysed used symbolism, irony, and juxtaposition to illustrate how conflict causes harm to those on both sides, and embodies the idea that those in power on either side are the only ones who truly win or suffer no loss. This is seen firstly through the use of a checkerboard and chess pieces to symbolise the events of of a conflict, and turn it into a visual metaphor for a game. Pawns and other pieces of both colours are knocked down, possibly representing those who suffer or lose their lives to conflict, which may suggest . In the case of the Syrian civil war, this may represent those on both the side of the government and those who opposed them. As a commentator, Ali Ferzat may therefore be implying that violence and conflict have ramifications for both the victims and the perpetrators, which is a common theme throughout his work. Furthermore, the image of the king pieces shaking hands in the salient point of the illustration, which likely symbolise those in power on both sides of this conflict, is in stark contrast with all of the other pieces knocked down through implied violence. This contrast likely serves as commentary on the idea that only those in power benefit from or are saved from the negative effects of conflict, alluding to the well-known saying “there are no winners in war”. Finally, the image of the king pieces shaking hands may also symbolise cooperation or an agreement for peace. This may create humour through the irony of a peaceful resolution amid and after brutal conflict. However, it may also force audiences to think about the futility of deaths in a conflict, especially in a conflict such as the Syrian civil war, where hundreds of thousands of civillians have lost their lives.
The second cartoon of Ferzat’s I analysed used symbolism and irony to portray the extent to which authoritarian regimes such as Syria’s government aim to control the ideas and thoughts of Syrians. As a journalist and artist, Ferzat uses common symbols such as a uniform, gun, and a conveyor belt to represent a customs guard, creating a metaphor for the role of officers in the mukhbarat or Syrian secret service, who worked to prevent ideas of rebellion from spreading throughout the country. There is also irony used through the idea of this officer searching the other man’s mind and thoughts, which are intangible things that can’t be seen, rather than his possesions, which is what readers would assume a customs officer would do. This may be used to create satire or humour in the cartoon. However, this may also provoke readers to think about the power of new ideas when they are spread, and how they can be used to challenge those who are established in power. Linke the first cartoon, this onecannot explicitly be identified as relating to Syria. However, it is very much rooted in context through the generalised representations of specific events happening in Syria.
Ali Ferzat’s political cartoons differ in many ways from other cartoons created by other Syrian artists. As mentioned before, his cartoons are often very generalisable and could be applied to any other conflict or authoritarian regime, with little to no symbols or imagery that could identify it as representing Syria. While this is the case for some other Syrian cartoonists, many others depict the more specific sufferings of Syrians, making direct reference to places in Syria and the specific people and countries involved in the war. Furthermore, Ferzat’s cartoons are often in black and white or have minimal colour within them, often resulting in contrast between different elements of his illustrations. However, other cartoonists often make use of a much wider variety of colours in their pieces, reducing graphic weight but opening up possibilities for colour to have different effects on readers. Despite these differences, there are many similarities between Ferzat’s work and that of other cartoonists. For example, both use very minimal text and rarely use speech bubbles, letting the visual elements of the cartoon guide readers instead. Furthermore, both deal with very similar themes of the suffering experienced by civillians, the futility of the violence, and the negative effects of the involvement of multiple powers in the conflict.
Overall, I have found our exploration of this body of work highly interesting and poignant. I have been able to make many connections betaeen the themes seen in this BOW and what we have seen when studying Bob Dylan and Human Acts. I think this was also a good way to re-introduce a conflict we had heard about for many years in the past and take a closer but more retrospective look on it, and truly understand the sentiments of those involved.