Considering the Political Nature of Emily Eakes' Alphabet

Though many would prefer to avoid discussing politics on account of the often negative connotation such a word has, this sentiment does not degrade or dispatch the fact that most, if not all, of our activity in this world is political in nature. It has been said that human beings are social creatures, and I think it prudent to add that we are also political creatures. Political communication surrounds us, consumes us and pervades our lives at every moment. Political communication does not begin with candidate debates nor does it end in the folds of a textbook.

Of all the possible (and politically charged) communication channels, the most pervasive yet surprisingly neglected is that of political artwork. I say pervasive because political artwork can be found everywhere; be it graffiti in a low-income neighborhood (any neighborhood, in fact), the cover of a novel or the more traditional editorial cartoon. I say neglected because we often take its presence for granted. Whether this is on account of our having difficulty with aesthetic presentation or something else is a matter of debate not part of this brief article.

For this article, I will be considering a piece of political artwork featured at Washburn University’s Mulvane art gallery. The piece, “Alphabetical Order,” by Emily Eakes of Lawrence, KS is unique in its attempt to juxtapose the innocence of childhood with the often shallow, violent and sexual nature of adulthood. In order to best consider this piece, this essay is divided into three parts: (1) the substance of the piece (physical and political), (2) what I gleaned from the piece before speaking with the artist and (3) its relation to framing as discussed in Lakoff and Bell, et al.

Substance

Physical

Physically speaking, the piece is quite large in comparison to other works around it. Whereas another piece may only take up a two foot square section, Eakes' piece comprises half of a rather large wall in Mulvane. Needless to say, the piece steals the attention of viewers by forcing itself into their field of vision.

The substance of the piece is comprised of twenty-six square images placed on standard black clipboards. The images are built up in layers beginning with an image upon which is placed a stamp representing a letter of the alphabet, containing a small icon with a word. The icon within a stamp contains an image which corresponds to the letter and word being considered. For example: “E” is represents “egg,” and the icon is an egg. The third layer consists of black clipboards to which the stamped image is affixed.

Political

The political nature of this piece only becomes apparent when stamps and images are considered in terms of each other. For example, the stamp “C is for cat” hearkens back to the letter-recognition exercises performed by children in grade school. However, when looking past the stamp to the image, which is pointedly blurry, you find a picture which is not a cat. In the case of “C is for Cat,” the image is that of female genitalia. Considered together, the word “cat” and the image draw the viewer to a slang term not to be mentioned by people of high morals refined character (but we still know what it is!). This type of wordplay is featured throughout the piece, and once noticed, it becomes very hard to avoid reading every letter of the alphabet.

The viewer is inclined to stay with the piece because it contrasts the innocence of childhood (“B is for Book”) with the greatly depreciated innocence of adulthood. This much should be evidence in the fact that most adults will understand the reference being made when looking at “C is for Cat.” So what message are we to take from this piece beyond the obvious wordplay?

My Impression

At first glance, I did not really notice the images. They are printed in grayscale and quite blurry, but this blurry nature forces one to look closely at the images. Once that occurs, they nearly assault the senses by denying one the expected image. In the case of “R is for Rope,” I expected to see an image of a rope; perhaps curled up or strung about a fence – I expected to see an image like that on the flashcards from my childhood. Instead, the image presented is that of a rope being used to lynch a man in front of a rather large and happy crowd.

After going through the entire alphabet and considering the images associated with stamps, I could not help but feel this piece was concerned with drawing light to the often violent, shallow and sexual nature not simply of human beings but of society. “S is for Star” contains an image of the late “King of Pop” Michael Jackson.

What is truly curious about this piece is how some people may not react to every image in the same way. For some, the lynched man in “R” may be no cause for concern. For a drug addict, the image in “V” may simply make them crave a hit. For a pro-life individual, “E” may engender a feeling that much more needs to be done in overturning Roe v Wade, while the contrary may be true for a pro-choice individual. On account of all the possible reactions, it occurred to me that perhaps the piece was not concerned with the inherently violent, shallow and sexual nature of society. Perhaps this sentiment represented the frame which I utilized in an attempt to understand the piece.

Framing

Bell et. al., and Lakoff both discuss framing in considerable detail. Frames are those simple structures we use to make sense of the world and with which will fill with larger, livable, narratives. If Eakes’ goal was to engender thought, she has certainly succeeded. She writes, “[. . .] the imagery then becomes amusing, repulsive, unsettling, intense or any other way the viewer might respond to the work.” In this case, I responded with a frame which saw society as being violent and sexual. Others may have responded in different ways. Perhaps some framed the artwork in terms of being cheeky or amusing, as Eakes notes, while others might view it as being a blatant attempt by yet another “artist” to cause a ruckus.

In this light, Eakes artwork is not designed to display the world in a particular way; it is designed to draw light to the frame utilized by the viewer. She does this by playing our sense of childhood innocence against our matured adulthood experiences. The dissonance created therein (or not) forces the viewer to consider how he or she frames reality. I was struck by this possibility, as my response immediately ran toward the conclusion of society as being degrading and superficial. This surprise forced me to focus more closely upon the frame I chose, which engendered a session of critical thought concerning my own positions on certain aspects of reality. Herein lays the political nature of Eakes strikingly subtle yet affecting piece. And this is precisely what Lakoff means when he states progressives must activate the progressive leanings of the biconceptual. By activating the progressive mindset (and inhibiting the conservative) it forces the biconceptual to rethink or confront his or her own view of reality in progressive terms. While Eakes has left conclusions to the viewer, she utilizes one’s own frame against oneself in order to inspire critical thought concerning the frame itself.