tyrone, in the post below, made this comment:
Thanks for posting–love the video and while I agree with the creators of the piece, the third guy does have a point about satire. Even my college students don’t get it. I’ve taught George Schuylers hilarious BLACK NO MORE three times–and three times the students just sit there, stonily trying to dissect the “serious” message of the novel. If you have to explain it…
thanks for commenting tyrone! one thing i’ve been thinking about–from discussing magee’s “their glittering guys,” the New Yorker Obama cover, and from these more recent videos–is the idea of a subjective universal experience of satire. this aesthetic idea is embodied in a comment by the READ A BOOK creator on CNN:
“kids understand satire.”
if we know the work of art is satire (either thru our own perception, or from others, or from the creators themselves)–then we know its purposivityness and should think it’s funny and critical. and we should all have the same experience of the satire because we all understand satire. and, if you are offended by the satire then let me explain once again that it’s satire and once you know it’s satire you will not really be offended.
what this kind of universalizing aesthetic fails to take into account is that people have different affective responses to satire (and to any aesthetic form)–responses tied to race, gender, class, education, etc.
a woman of color may understand that the READ A BOOK video is satire, and she may still be offended by its portrayal of women, etc. or she may not.
and as tyrone mentioned, not all kids understand satire. and i would add, not all kids–even those who understand satire–experience it the same way.