April 22, 2009
Taipei, Taiwan
A book review in the New York Times by MICHIKO KAKUTANI of “CHE’S AFTERLIFE : The Legacy of an Image” By Michael Casey caught me eye today. The question that I am interested in here with the iconic image of Ernesto Guevara by Korda and its current existence as a vast global brand is this, what is a symbol if its divorced from its original meaning and intent?
This particular image of Che has been reproduced as action figures, printed on t-shirts, watches, sneakers, key chains, cigarette lighters, coffee mugs and then some. Gisele Bündchen had once pranced down a runway in a Che bikini. “The historical Che Guevara gave way, post-mortem, to a host of other Ches: St. Che, said to possess the ability to perform miracles; Chesucristo, a Christ-like figure revered for his ideals, not his advocacy of violence; an entrepreneurial Che, promoting the lesson “that individuals should honestly strive to produce their utmost for the good of all”; and the Rock ’n’ Roll Che, more representative of youthful anti-authoritarianism than of any political dogma.” It would seem that in our search to fulfill our need for symbols and icons, we have readily forgotten about the politics of Che Guevara, apotheosized him, erased his failing and love of violence from the symbol. The icon is no longer rooted in actuality.
Why are we so starved for symbols and icons? Is it to remind us that the impossible can always become possible? Or is it simply a cultural short hand these days for us to “appear” educated, cultured and politically minded without needing to actually be so? A t-shirt with image of Che becomes a instant-mix of our liberal assertions without needing our politics be backed up by actual actions and thought. Be a leftist today, all you need is a Che t-shirt.
Che was “notorious as a ruthless disciplinarian who unhesitatingly shot defectors and revered by supporters for his rigid dedication to professed doctrines, he remains a controversial and significant historical figure. As a result of his perceived martyrdom, poetic invocations for class struggle, and desire to create the consciousness of a “new man” driven by “moral” rather than “material” incentives.” Yet the global Che brand is an example of how “ideas travel and mutate in this age of globalization, how concepts of political ideology have increasingly come to be trumped by notions of commerce and cool and chic” that Che has become “the quintessential postmodern icon” signifying “anything to anyone and everything to everyone.” If so, then are we not defiling and devaluing Che’s life and work and let the currents of Capitalism triumph and profit from it? Would Che enjoy the notion that he has transcended meaning and can be anything to anyone and everything to everyone?
Why are we unable to divorce some symbols from their root as we can with Che but not with others? Take an extreme example, the phrase “Sieg Heil” which has become commonly known as the Hitler Salute which is actually a variant of the Roman salute and the phrase itself means “Heil Victory” or “Victory and Blessings.” The expression itself is older than Nazism and the phrase does not actually celebrate or condone the atrocities of the Third Reich. Yet if I were to wish someone “Sieg Heil,” I would probably get a dirty look to say the least but more likely a harsh talking to about how that is inappropriate. How do we decide as a collective whole of which symbol we would divorce from its original meaning and recycle it for Capitalist intent and which ones will be off limits forever?
If Che was alive today, would he sport an Obama T-shrit, snicker at the fact that his face is covering Gisele’s million dollar ass and smile when I wish him “Sieg Heil?”
Interesting post. The same can be said about MLK, in my opinion. There are a lot of things that made Martin as a man that are often brushed aside or forgotten when it comes to creating his legend. For instance, the fact that he tired of the civil rights movement and was said to have fantasized about getting out of it. And he was great at adultery as well. Doesn’t damper anything he did with his life (at least not for me), but I do think it troubling when people take the legend over the actual human quality of the person.
I think the need for icons has always been a human need — we have a hard time both believing and accepting that we are alone, that there is nothing over us or guiding us. We’re scared, and we’re bored — what would we be if we didn’t have our icons and symbols? From a non-ironic, non-commercialized standpoint, icons and symbols are useful and inspirational, even. The greatest problem in this age is that people only stop at the iconography. They don’t bother to be inspired to chart their own paths, or make their own statement. Collectively, there seems to be the attitude that everything that’s could be done has been done, and everything that could be said has been said. Because the assumption is that there’s nothing new to create, people have found themselves attaching to symbols without troubling to find out what they mean.
It isn’t the need for symbols that’s at fault here. I think it’s the assumption that as human beings, we’ve developed as far as we can go — that all our great ideas about how to live and be have already been ‘created’.
Sorry if this makes no sense. I have an awful headache.
Che Guevara was one of the greatest men to ever live.
He lives on as an icon because the mass of humanity is longing for a leader to come along with half of his integrity and moral standing.
This man left a cushy position of power to slog through the jungle and fight for nations he had never been to. Meanwhile our politicians steal millions in their penthouse.
He was a poet, visionary, and prophet when he spoke of the evils of capitalism which we see today.
Hasta la Victoria Siempre !
El CHE VIVE !