Nosey Caricatura

Having a rather prominent nose, I have been throughout my life been alerted to its comic potential - a fact which has been seized upon by bullies and friends alike. My brothers, not so well endowed in this department, would make ducking motions after calling my name. At school, those of a Pythagorian persuasion were wont to call me Terry Triangle which also fitted my pigeon or barrel chest (the late Robert Mitchum and lots of others sported). I think it hurt me. Children, and even work colleagues, love to tease and given any purchase on a person, such as a minor defect will be emboldened to enlarge, extend, until it takes upon such proportions until you think that person is just a walking spot or nose. Of course it would seem that public figures with power or fame, are sitting ducks for this wilful misperception. It can hurt, and of course it is also a lot of fun, to be handled like a firework, very responsibly, lest it blow up in your face. I can now celebrate my nose, and can anticipate jokes regarding my schnozzle at the blink of an eyelid, like the more celebrated schnozzlee, Cyrano. Large, pointed, snubbly, flat, whatever the shape, noses are more than olfactory organs. Mine was used as a prototype for concorde design. Boom boom. I am in no need of a remote control because I can use my nose. Boom boom. Yet, if one discusses noses of people of different ethnic backgrounds, then it is a different matter, it is ideological. Difficult then, for the caricaturists of the British prime minister Benjamin Disraeli, because from their perspective, his nose defined him as different and had obvious comic possibilities. Much easier with Gladstone whose nose, though not semitic, was an object of ridicule through extension. It would seem that though caricatures can be used to support politicians or as fun souveneirs from Paris, they can hurt individuals greatly and should be seen as a visual assault in the case of those who belong to classes of people who are without power such as ordinary folk and minorities. The classical example of bad caricature is the one that offended the Islamic community. It was one of their prophet. Firstly, it would seem that Gods and Prophets are fit subjects for caricature, because they are all powerful. However, while that may be true, the object of the caricature was not primarily the prophet, but his believers, and they in Denmark belonged to a minority class who did not have the real power to either smile and accept, because they did not share the same values, nor have the power to defend themselves. The caricaturist working for a fairly right wing newspaper felt that his intended readership, the ones who would titter over his drawing, would share his beliefs regarding the minority that had been ghettoised in Denmark and had been from the newspaper’s pov, radicalised by extreme Islam. The local moslems could not themselves defend themselves, thus it became a matter of concern for the Moslem world. Many in Denmark in their defence of the caricaturist say that freedom of expression is primary, and that the moslems should learn to laugh at themselves. After all Jesus and Christianity had been satirised for eons. However, this is arguing from a position of strength and shared beliefs – to make and extend jokes about the Danish royal family is tolerated, but there is a line. You can only go so far in attacking a sovereign leader. It would seem that common sense can dictate how one represents people, in fairness, one should not really mock those who cannot defend themselves, even if it is the targetting of a prophet – there is collateral damage that harms people locally.