satire

Opinion

The art world’s lost sense of humour

Censors assume everyone must be stupid

BY KAT ROSENFIELD

. Censored art: Philip Guston's Riding Around (1969)

Kat Rosenfield is an UnHerd columnist and co-host of the Feminine Chaos podcast. Her 2021
novel No One Will Miss Her has been nominated for the Edgar Award.

katrosenfield

December 14, 2022
Filed under:

ArtCancel cultureCensorshipComedyElon MuskPhilip GustonTwittertwitter files
Share:

“Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better, but the frog dies in the
process.” Truer words than these famous ones of E.B. White’s have rarely been spoken, and
so requiring an explanation for jokes has long been, if not a strict taboo, then at least frowned
upon for the way it ruins the fun. To not get it used to be a sign of an individual’s
shortcomings, an admission of either dull-wittedness or hopeless disconnection from
the zeitgeist where humour is born.

But lately, the common wisdom about letting comedy or artworks or even facts speak for
themselves has been subverted by a deepening fear of what might happen if something gets
lost in translation. A guy who doesn’t get the joke might instead get the wrong idea — and
what then? Some sort of catastrophe, for sure, if not outright anarchy.

Like what you’re reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email

Sign up, for free

Already registered? Sign in

These anxieties were on particularly potent display amid the recent to-do surrounding the
Twitter Files, which are either a groundbreaking act of corporate transparency by the tech
world’s biggest disruptor — or a giant, embarrassing nothingburger, depending on who you

ask. For those not in the know, the Files offer a glimpse behind the scenes at Twitter during
various recent controversies, when content moderation arguably crossed the line into
censorship. There have been four Files thus far, released in the form of massive tweet threads
by journalists hand-picked by Elon Musk. All have offered insights into the challenges of
managing speech on the microblogging site, which holds a place of outsized cultural
influence owing to its status as a favourite hangout for media folks, but the adverse
relationship between Twitter management and humorous content was on fullest display in
Matt Taibbi’s recent thread about the site’s collaboration with government agencies to
combat misinformation in the leadup to the 2020 election, which culminated in the permanent
banning of Donald Trump from the site.
Among the tweets that Twitter employees had highlighted as cause for concern was a joke
from October 2020. Former Arkansas governor and one-time presidential hopeful, the
Republican Mike Huckabee, took a jab at the mail-in voting system: “Stood in rain for hour
to early vote today,” Huckabee wrote. “When I got home I filled in my stack of mail-in
ballots and then voted the ballots of my deceased parents and grandparents. They vote just
like me! #Trump2020”

Join us at our upcoming events in the UnHerd Club, or tune in live online.

Monday, 9 Jan - 7pm

Matthew CrawfordGratitude in a time of apocalypse

Buy a ticket

Wednesday, 11 Jan - 7pm

Coleman HughesDefeating the race baiters

Buy a ticket

Thursday, 19 Jan - 7pm

Mary Harrington & Elise BohanThe transhumanism debate

Buy a ticket

As dumb as this joke was, there’s a certain dark absurdity to the response it inspired behind
the scenes at Twitter: “This appears to be a joke, but other people might believe it,” one
anonymous employee wrote when the tweet was flagged. Trust and Safety head executive
Yoel Roth wrote: “I agree it’s a joke, but he’s also literally admitting in a tweet to a crime.”

He’s literally admitting in a tweet to a crime. If this were a work of fiction, here is the line
that would elicit an editorial eyeroll and a polite note about the need to maintain subtlety in
satire. But then, in a way, it is fiction. When Roth says, “he’s literally admitting to a crime,”
he knows full well that the “crime” in question never happened; he’s telling a joke of his
own, concocting a winking pretext for ideological censorship under the guise of policing
misinformation.

As Kathleen Stock noted in a recent essay, there are two explanations for this affected
literality, this iron-fisted narrative control: either the censor himself is stupid, or he thinks
everyone else is. This makes for its own set of problems in the worlds of media and
academia, but it has especially worrisome implications for comedy, and for art, where the
message of the work, what it makes you think, is a distant second to what it makes you feel.
The cult of the fact-check, this notion that we cannot sacrifice accuracy even for the sake of
having a laugh, is the antithesis of fun — even when intentions are good.

Last June, Twitter implemented “birdwatch”, “a community-based approach to
misinformation”. The feature allowed users to add relevant context to misleading tweets, but
people immediately set about not only correcting the record on factually incorrect news
items, but also dissecting a whole lot of metaphorical joke-frogs to death. One representative
example, a clever jibe about NASA’s history of offering amnesty to Nazis, was instantly
ruined by the attachment of an explanation that not only reduced the substance of the joke to
a third-grade reading level but reads as though it had been written by an actual third grader
(“This is a joke based on the fact that the early days of NASA was ran by Nazis that were
granted amnesty in exchange for working for the U.S. government in research and
development”). Looking at this note — which a majority of users rated as useful for being
“easy to understand” — one wonders whether it is worse to fact-check a joke or to just
suppress it outright. In the latter case, at least the frog survives.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Demisexuals are scared of sex

BY KAT ROSENFIELD

Beneath the contemporary anxiety over misinformation, it seems something older and more
insidious lurks: the eternal, authoritarian urge to stamp out irreverence and imagination lest
they give people ideas. The threats to the narrative can come from anywhere: in 2017, for
instance, the makers of the video game Minecraft eliminated a whimsical feature that allowed
users to feed (digital) chocolate chip cookies to the game’s (digital) parrot population, after
an uproar over the possibility that real parrots might be harmed. In 2020, the Auschwitz
memorial condemned the Amazon series Hunters, a show about modern-day Nazi hunters,
for a depiction of fictional (albeit directionally accurate) wartime atrocities that, per the
memorial, was “not only dangerous foolishness” in its injection of imagination into a
Holocaust story, but “also welcomes future deniers”. Of course, reasonable people can
disagree on whether the show’s human chess match was in good taste, but the notion that

aspiring Holocaust deniers are likely to be found watching an Amazon series about a group of
Jewish vigilantes hunting down and murdering Nazis seems misplaced at best. Those folks
are watching Disney, obviously. (That was a joke.)

This desire to intellectually handhold consumers to the proper conclusions about what they’re
watching, reading, or looking at has also found expression lately in the “recontextualisation”
of art exhibits. Where paintings were once displayed alongside notes about the artist’s use of
light, or the life events that might have influenced the work, some museums now instruct
viewers to interpret the art through the timeliest political lens. Last year, a Tate exhibit of
paintings by the artist William Hogarth raised hackles for imbuing a wooden chair with
sinister subtext: “The chair is made from timbers shipped from the colonies, via routes which
also shipped enslaved people”, read the label displayed alongside one of Hogarth’s self-
portraits. “Could the chair also stand in for all those unnamed black and brown people
enabling the society that supports his vigorous creativity?”

According to this new paradigm, the beauty of the art is a secondary concern — if it’s present
at all. Meanwhile, some works have been deemed so offensive that no amount of
contextualisation can make them safe for viewing by the general population, as with
the cancellation in 2020 of a long-anticipated Philip Guston exhibit. Guston’s depictions of
hooded, cartoonish klansmen were always meant as a critical statement on the banality of
evil, but how could curators be assured that the public, those fools, would understand this?

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

The triumph of the introverts

BY KAT ROSENFIELD

The creative world is increasingly haunted by the spectre of this hypothetical moron, who
cannot sort fact from fiction, or art from news, or humorous gags about overconsumption
from the mistaken conviction that beer is a fruit. Nobody ever demands contextualisation on
their own behalf, of course: they’re not stupid! But other people are — not just stupid, but
vapid, a collectively empty chassis awaiting an ideological engine. It’s like the anonymous
Twitter employee said: sure, it’s obviously a joke, but other people might believe it.

The irony is that we know more than ever how true this isn’t. The age of social media offers
us a far more expansive view of what people think, and why, and how they reach those
conclusions, than we have ever had before. Yet as with the Twitter Files, this greater
transparency only seems to fuel ever greater mistrust — and a sense that the stakes are far too
high to simply leave people to their own devices. And while the impact so far has been
largely administrative — a silly museum label here, a fact check there — how likely is it to
end there?