Monday, 20 July 2015

The Problem with Satire (08/10/14)

Last week, a ‘Banksy’ in Clacton-on-Sea was destroyed because it was deemed to be racist. The artwork in question was an image portraying a group of pigeons telling an exotic bird to ‘go back to Africa’, among other things.

Quite obviously, the image was a satire of intolerance, and it’s almost bemusing to think that anyone could have construed it as otherwise, particularly as ‘bird art’ isn’t really the most popular medium for hate. Most racists who do want immigrants to ‘go home’ tend not to deliver said message via a confused, pigeon-based metaphor stencilled onto a garage door. Likewise the Islamic State has never made a papier maché swan with ‘Fuck Obama’ crayoned onto its beak and a burning picture of Diana glued to its cock, and pushed it out to sea. If it did, I’m sure the UK’s terror threat level would rise, but it definitely hasn’t.

What’s more bemusing to me though is the media’s general praise of the piece. Despite knowing nothing about art I quite like Banksy – much in the same way I quite like The Beatles despite knowing nothing about music or quite like Top Gear despite knowing nothing about being a cunt towards South Americans.

But I don’t think this particular mural was in any way a masterpiece, nor a good piece of satire. It may as well have been entitled ‘Racism – but imagine if it was birds what were doing it’, because that’s essentially what it is. Look at it this way: you wouldn’t call someone a genius if they drew some ants as a metaphor for the financial crisis or wrote about some farmyard animals as an analogy for the Russian Revolution, would you?

Yet maybe the media were so impressed with this mural because in the current scheme of British satire it actually fairs okay. TV, for instance, is a mess. Apparently ‘Have I got news for you?’ is satirical, but by that logic so is writing ‘Eric Pickles is fat’ on a napkin. ‘Russell Howard’s Good News’ was meant to be satire for the next generation but it’s largely just an eight year old introducing YouTube clips of a dog trying to lick its own arse on a trampoline.

Good satire is important, though, and it shouldn’t be this hard to produce. The US manages it. Take John Oliver’s ‘Last Week Tonight’ on HBO. It’s self-assured enough to spend more than eight seconds and a nob-gag on each piece, which means it can find comedy in the depth of issues rather than just their headlines. Sure, the studio audience woop their way through the thing like a pack of Barbary apes being tickled with ice cubes, but that doesn’t stop it being watchable. Or better than anything we’ve got right now.

So I feel like British satire needs a bit of help. If Banksy comes to Cambridge he’ll probably spray an anti-Semitic manatee onto the Van of Life or something, and no-one wants that. Thus, I’ve come up with some Banksy-style murals that I think effectively satirise the most pressing issues in Cambridge. I hope you enjoy them.

Satire of the Boots Meal Deal:

Satire of the Cambridge one way system
Satire of Girton being far away
Pretty self-explanatory
Satire of rising theatre ticket prices

The Solution to Porn (22/10/14)

What was a ‘first time’ like for the generation where no-one had access to porn? I imagine the following:

The male would have screamed and orgasmed instantly upon seeing a pair of breasts; likewise, the female would have screamed and pretended to orgasm instantly upon seeing a penis. They’d then have cried, shook hands and parted ways.

What will a ‘first time’ be like for those in the near, semi-dystopian future where everyone has alltheporn.porn as their smart-watch homepage from when they’re eleven? I imagine the following:

The male will scream and vomit instantly upon seeing a pair of non-surgically enhanced breasts; likewise, the female will scream and vomit instantly upon seeing a naked man she probably likes scream and vomit. They’ll then cry, shake hands, and return to The Anti-Ebola Centre for Survivors™.

What I’ve tried to illustrate is that first times are always terrible – comically so – but that there’s a growing concern they’re becoming the wrong kind of terrible. A ruined-by-porn kind of terrible. The Guardian’s recent sex survey drew the conclusion that porn is changing what young people, particularly boys, expect from sex. Apparently they want sex to emulate what they’ve seen online, which is bound to be more extreme than anything they’re ready for. It’s also bound to leave them disappointed.

But I take slight issue with the argument. I would never deny that what we watch as we grow up can change subtly us (for instance I grew up watching Get Your Own Back, and now whenever my parents ask me to tidy my room I get a black man to push them into an artificial slurry pit.) But I think it’s somewhat of a knee-jerk reaction to assume porn is completely altering the way young people have sex, even if it is having an effect. You see, the survey hasn’t considered just how desperate for any sexual contact many young people are.

I, like a number Cambridge students, spent most of my teenage years in the foetal position alternating between aggressively applying ‘Oxy-10’ and chuckling nervously at the jokes in the CGP textbooks. I was hyper-horny, terrified, and in a state of perpetual frustrated nonogamy. Thus, had a girl offered me sex when I was seventeen I don’t think I would have questioned the specifics, let alone demanded a jacuzzi-earfuck-gangbang or whatever then kicked off when she refused.

To be honest I’d have probably either pinched myself to death or bored her into leaving by combing the area for hidden cameras while muttering something about the ‘Prank Patrol’. But then I suppose I’m not really part of the generation the survey’s describing. I didn’t have porn on my phone – I had a midi version of ‘Chico Time’ by Chico. Sure, that probably did fuck me up a bit but it can’t have made me hate women’s bodies. If anything it made me hate men. Certainly made me hate one of them.

So if porn does increasingly affect young people, what’s the solution? I suppose we could dramatically improve sex education to cover the dangers of porn consumption, but that sounds like something sensible Sweden would do so we probably won’t.

In reality I think the solution is to weave sex education into online pornography. If done subtly, I’m pretty sure no-one would mind. I envisage something like this:

Porn film/sex-education mashup – by Adrian Gray

MAN knocks on door. He is delivering a bag of sausages (metaphor).

Woman opens door.

WOMAN: Are you here with the sausages?

MAN: Yes.

MAN accidentally glances at camera then shifts awkwardly. You can see that the actor feels uncomfortable with the dialogue aspect of his job. He’s probably also fundamentally unhappy.

WOMAN: Then come in.

She emphasises the word come a bit too much and it sounds like she’s taking the piss. 

MAN: Okay.

They enter the woman’s characterless living room. Although full of possessions it’s somehow still empty. A sort of beige suburban hell. 

MAN: Can I put my sausage in your bun?

WOMAN: Hehe.

MAN: Can I do you up the arse?

WOMAN: No. (To camera) Although porn might establish anal sex as the norm, if attempted without experience and the appropriate lubricant it can be painful for the woman, or possibly even dangerous. Protection should also always be worn.

MAN: Let’s try missionary.

Happy Days theme plays. Credits roll.