Having discussed specific cartoons in the preceding two chapters, the aim of the conclusion is to tease out some of the issues which have been raised during the course of this paper, in particular the implication that "anarchists" and "activists" have for developing a critical art practice.

While recognizing that the respective points of entry for Bauer and Zapiro are different, and in some ways diametrically opposed, it would be crude simply to contrast the two strategies of intervention without recognising the overlap that exists between these strategies, and to explore both the possible advantages and limitations of "anarchy" and "activism" for political cartooning.

In order to achieve this end it is necessary to identify who and what is subjected to criticism in the cartoons of Zapiro and Bauer, as well as to consider the character of this criticism.

Much of Zapiro's cartoons contain comment critical of the Nationalist Party government, the South African Defence Force (SADF), the South African Police (SAP), as well as of the "official" political opposition represented in the Tricameral Parliament. Also targeted by Zapiro are the SABC, the Chamber of Mines, the far right, homeland leaders and "rebel" sports tours. In addition, powerful "friends" of the South African government such as British Premier Margaret Thatcher and American President Ronald Reagan, are also lampooned by Zapiro.

Repression, censorship, disinformation, corruption and destabilisation, are the dominant themes with which the groupings named above (usually represented by their leaders), are shown to be associated.

Fig.28

Zapiro is far gentler in his representation of representatives of the extra-parliamentary opposition to Nationalist Party rule. The UDF, South African Youth Congress (SAYCO), Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), the ANC, South African Council of Churches (SACC), and Black Sash all escape the physical distortion and sometimes undignified contexts to which the government and its allies are subjected. (156) ( Fig.28)

In contrast to Zapiro, Bauer, according to Anton Harber, "treats all people as equals. He sees everyone he draws as equally disgusting." (157). This is more or less consistent with the views that "If you're going to be in favor of something, you might as well not be a cartoonist" (158) and that "In consistently applied caricature there are no 'heroes'" (159), which can also be seen as closer to an older view of caricature articulated by Champfleury who wrote: "a true caricaturist could never be popular because he revealed the weaknesses, lies and deformities of humanity." (160)

In Bauer ' s terms the "fact that Zapiro reserves his criticism for the opponents of the ANC/SACP/UDF/COSATU alliance, more specifically the government and its allies, means that he is "not a cartoonist" (161).

However, the above definitions of caricature/cartooning do not acknowledge the heterogeneous character of the practice, and while claiming pedigree ("true caricaturist"), represent a selective view of the function of cartoons (specifically political cartoons). (162)

Contrary to the view of cartooning expressed above, Zapiro develops the potential of cartooning as a didactic practice. While this would clearly contradict Champfleury's view that "Caricature should not preach" (163), the politically partisan character of Zapiro's cartoons is motivated by a sense of social injustice and inequality, and a belief that in order to assist the process of political and social change it is necessary to work jointly with the organised formations of political resistance (more specifically those under the rubric of the "Mass Democratic Movement"), which represent the ideals with which the cartoonist himself has openly identified. (164)

Seen in this perspective, Zapiro's cartoons should not only be seen as party political propaganda, but also as motivated by a sense of morality (165). This is not to suggest however that moral outrage is peculiar to politically aligned or "activist" cartoonists. The "anarchist", although theoretically politically "independent", "neutral" or "non-aligned" may also be motivated by a sense of morality.

Fig.8

Bauer's Mbeki cartoon (fig.8) is a case in point. Caricature here has clearly not been "consistently applied". The relative dignity accorded Mbeki compared to the visual representation of his interviewer make it very clear who is the "hero" in this cartoon. There are two ways of interpreting this. In the first instance it could be argued that the stark polarities of South African experience, particularly during the Emergency, has begun to affect Bauer's political position as a "fence-sitter" (166).

This interpretation may be supported by the fact that whereas early Bauer cartoons were fairly indiscriminate in their targets, towards the end of the Emergency they tended, like Zapiro's to be directed at the government, its agents and allies.

There is however another interpretation which is that Bauer is simply acceding to pressure from the Weekly Mail constituency. In order to maintain his regular cartoon spot he cannot, for example, criticize Mandela to the extent that he can a government representative. (167)

Bauer and Zapiro approach the combination of written texts and visual image with different understandings which are consistent with the fundamental differences between the approaches of both cartoonists to their work.

Bauer's emphasis is primarily visual (168), in fact it is tempting to conclude that the subject in Bauer's cartoons is often the drawing itself. For instance the title Play-Pen (fig.10) can, in addition to the meanings indicated earlier, also be understood as referring to the pen of the cartoonist himself, the play being the act of drawing itself. The frequent use of apparent "accidents" such as ink spots and fingerprints in his cartoons, particularly in order to suggest blood, can also be seen as implying self-consciousness about the character of the media (ink) which he employs.

Fig.10

Bauer's approach to cartooning is closer to conventional notions of "art" than "propaganda" (169), and he will as far as it is possible, avoid the inclusion of labels which may help identify the subject (170). This at times causes the content of his cartoon to be unclear, even to a contemporary audience (171).

Contrary to this, Zapiro "does not shy away from the propagandist quality in [his] work" (172). Zapiro places his major emphasis on developing his concepts, taking particular concern to be intelligible to as broad a spectrum of his viewers as possible'' (173). The inclusion of written text contributes to "fixing" the message, and as such is not considered to weaken the cartoon.

While Bauer's political "independence" may suggest a greater scope for developing a critical art practice, it also provides its own limitations. For while political "non-alignment" provides "anarchists" with the space they need in order to "overthrow the serious" (174), they are also perceived as mavericks. As Paulson noted of Gillray "[he was] too likely to shoot in several directions at once to be a reliable political marksman." (175)

This of course, has implications for state censorship. Cartoonists who do not represent particular organized political organisations or interest groups can be allowed considerable license, even if they may be considered offensive in the short term. (176)

Bauer's cartoons, on occasion, serve to confirm the messages transmitted in the "dominant" rather than "alternative" media. His anti-sanctions cartoon ( fig. 18), for example, conforms to images of Archbishop Tutu promoted by both the State and commercial press of the "fat Bishop" who could afford to call for economic sanctions against South Africa.

Another example of Bauer's cartoons which reinforces rather than counters the "dominant" version of events was published in May 1986 ( fig.2 9) (177). It refers to the animosity between the recently launched, militant trade union COSATU, and the rival union launched by Inkatha soon after. Not only does the image itself conform to [white] stereotypes of blacks as barbaric, but it's political content is also muddled. The caption "An injury to one is an Injury to all" is a COSATU slogan, and would have been more appropriate to a representation of conflict between two of COSATU's affiliated unions, than between two rival groupings. The use of a sickle (COSATU) and hammer (UWUSA) is equally misleading. While COSATU is usually associated with Socialism, UWUSA advocates capitalism.

The cartoon contributes little in terms of political content. Instead of highlighting difference and conflict between the two unions, it suggests that "black" unions share a common agenda, which is being undermined by their inability to solve matters in a civilized manner.

"Activist" cartoonists, on the other hand, are not simply expressing individual perspectives, but also that of their particular political organisations. While on one level this in itself can create constraints for cartoonists (178), its "representative" character can also strengthen the political impact of the cartoons.

Despite the fundamental differences in approach indicated above, there are also several common features shared by both cartoonists. Neither of them see humour as a necessary constituent of cartooning (179), and when they use humour it is seldom purely for entertainment. Rather, humour is a means of expressing the absurdity of particular circumstances and is generally at the expense of the subject (eg a specific politician), rather than being the subject itself (180).

In addition, both recognize that the cartoonist has to operate within the limitations of general public awareness. Their answer to doing this is to use what Bauer calls "symbols" or what Zapiro calls "archetypes" (181).

While in academic terms the notions "symbols" and archetypes" may beg definition, what both cartoonists are essentially referring to is the eclectic use of reference points that are sufficiently established in the popular imagination so as to be recognized and understood.

There are several implications arising from the use of "popular reference points" as defined above. On one level it has implications for the "specific" or "universal" character of cartoons. A well known reference may mean that a cartoon's content, or at least a part of its content, may be legible to an audience unfamiliar with the specific character and circumstances which initially prompted the cartoon. On another level it has been suggested that "Multivalence is a convenient escape from censorship" (182). In other words, the ambiguity between specific and general content allows cartoonists greater license to represent their "victims" in absurd contexts (eg. fig.4 and fig.20) and survive prosecution for defamation of character. (183)

The ambiguity or tension between the specific and general content of political cartoons can also be seen in the representations of individuals, particularly prominent political and social figures. These individuals are invested with wider meaning. Despite the fact that they exploit specific physiognomic characteristics of particular politicians, these representations are generally more concerned with politicians as symbols of specific political ideologies than with politicians as individuals. Specific individuals may provide the initial points of departure, or putty so to speak, with which the cartoonist remoulds the individual's particular physiognomic characteristics so as visually to invest particular qualities associated not only with that individual, but also with the particular interest groups, organisations, political parties or ideologies which they represent.

Developing an iconography which is accessible without being cliched, and abstracting broader issues from concrete examples without losing focus or punch, are two of the problems which must be addressed by a cartoonist keen to communicate with a diverse audience without sacrificing "integrity" (both artistic and political).

CRITICISM IN A CULTURE OF RECONSTRUCTION

It is a characteristic of the era before the second of February 1990 that open political debate was suppressed. Banned publications were usually political in character. At present many of these publications are being officially unbanned (184). A look at any list of publications banned recently shows that the censors are more occupied with combating "obscene" material. This is in sharp contrast to the previous situation. (185)

Affairs shows that less than 7% of publications submitted for banning come from the public...A total of 622 publications were considered prejudicial to state security - against only nine complaints against pornographic material. The 622 does not include publications by illegal

Despite this apparent "glasnost", political intolerance of views expressed by differing political tendencies has caused untold death and destruction in the last year. The need to encourage political tolerance and open and critical debate is essential in order to begin to reconstruct a nation that is characterized by political and cultural diversity.

While the banning of political organisations encouraged the development of a "culture of secrecy" and contributed to the party-political character of Zapiro's cartoons, it will be interesting to see whether, having returned recently from studying in the United States, Zapiro's criticism will continue to be reserved exclusively for "the enemy", or will begin to adopt a more independent perspective, itself in line with calls by the ANC leadership that journalists should not be propagandists for the ANC, and that a free and critical press is necessary in order to develop democracy (186).

ANC deputy president Nelson Mandela has stated; "we need a strong, independent and courageous press to communicate across the divides that wreck our country...The freer the press, the greater the possibilities for individual rights and personal liberty, for building a nation imbued with a spirit of tolerance and humanity." (187). "Criticism", Mandela said shortly after his release, "even though sometimes it is painful, is valuable -because it enables us to avoid some of the pitfalls into which we have fallen in the past. It is in the interests of the struggle as a whole. " (188)

In the context of this paper the sentiments expressed above may read as a vindication of political non-alignment, more specifically as pertaining to Bauer. However the "anarchist" may also have lessons to learn from the "activist".

Particularly as we move from a culture of resistance (189) to a culture of reconstruction and development, criticism is increasingly encouraged to adopt a constructive character. (190)

This is not to suggest that cartoonists should relinquish their historical role in satirising "others", particularly those in power, but that they should also sometimes take time to reflect on the nature of their criticism. Attacking others is easier than asking questions about oneself, and while self-criticism is perhaps more introspective than public, it is necessary to examine to what extent, if any, cartoons can not only expose society's weaknesses, but also contribute to the solving of social problems. (191)

Both positions, the "activist" and the "anarchist", are undesirable if taken to their extremes. The unquestioning party loyalist may prove to be more of a burden than an asset for a political organisation particularly as changing political circumstances demand that positions and strategies be constantly re-examined. Anarchy for anarchy's sake may produce social comment which is more irritating than enlightening.

The combination of word and image in order to comment on contemporary events, issues and individuals or interest groups means that the cartoonist can be seen as practicing a form of "graphic journalism". Cartooning can be seen as "the ultimate editing exercise" (192) its ability to summarise complex issues in "shorthand" being an obvious strength.

Political cartoonists are indeed fortunate that the heterogeneous character of cartooning provides them with differing models for inspiration, without providing rules.

< BACK TO INDEX PAGE >