Zoe Meade
Dr. Brown
English 306
09/12/16
Rhetorical Analysis of “The Emperor
Has No Balls”
August 30th, 2016 was the
day that the self-described “anarchist art collective” INDECLINE first came out
with their guerilla anti-Trump movement.
INDECLINE’s artist, “Ginger” began the protest by creating a life-size
statue of president hopeful Donald Trump, with a stern face, orange, veiny
skin, and completely naked, with a very small penis and no testicles. The group
then went to five cities, Seattle, New York, San Francisco, Cleveland, and Los
Angeles, and dressed as construction workers, bolted the statue down in “public
spaces” (Holley), rushing away into the crowd before anybody could stop them.
Once noticed, the statues left the people viewing them shocked, confused and
amused. By showing Trump in this
ridiculous form INDELINCE and its lead artist “Ginger” are trying to sway the
American vote and show Trump as the unfit candidate they view him to be.
But the statues are more complex than
just a crude statue of a controversial man. The audience of this perplexing art
protest is the American People, particularly, the American voter. The protest
is a play on the Han’s Christian Anderson story, “The Emperor’s new Clothes” a
story in which two clothing maker promise a powerful but foolhardy and incompetent
emperor a new set of wonderful clothes. The clothing makers tell the emperor
that anybody who wears the outfit that is too foolish, incompetent or just too
dumb for their position, will been seen wearing nothing at all. Then the
clothing makers give the emperor fake clothing, and he is too proud to say he
can’t see them. When the Emperor shows off his new “suit”, his subjects are too
scared to say that they don't see any clothes until a child pipes up, "But
he isn't wearing anything at all!" (Anderson). Additionally, the protest is playing on the Western
ideals of manhood. Not only is Trump portrayed as naked, he is emasculate.
Ginger shaped this trump caricatured with a micro-penis and, as the title so
clearly states, no balls.
By tying their statues to this old
moral story, INDECLINE’s “Emperor’s…” purpose seems to be calling out the
American voter. Much like the emperor’s subjects in the story, the American
people are too nervous or foolish to point out Trump is unfit for the position
of President. And by showing the statue naked and scowling, lacking in all modern
ideals of manhood, Ginger is using physical cues to lead the audience to a more
metaphorical point’ Donald Trump is not a “man” or in if he is, he is a weak
one, which the American is still supporting for unknown reasons.
Ginger and INDELINCE use Pathos and
Ethos to appeal to the American people on an ethical and emotional level.
When first viewing the statues, one
is affected immediately on an emotional level. It is humorous and a little
gross to look at. An audience member
might find themselves laughing or shocked when first viewing the statues.
Either way, they aren’t emotions one usually feels when viewing a Presidential
candidate. Generally, emotions like pride, joy, and most importantly respect,
are invoked when dealing with a president-hopeful. These statues strip Trump of any of those
positive emotions. It is very doubtful that anyone view these statues felt
respect for the Man. As fellow voters,
INDECLINE is pointing forcing the audience to view Trump the way that INDECLINE
see him. An INDECLINE spokesperson who wished to remain anonymous said
“We started thinking a lot about how
dictators and tyrants, all though history, were memorialized through statues.
Go to any major park in America, you've got some rich white general with a
sword. That guy was probably a complete piece of shit back in the day. All the
way from Caligula to Lenin, it was always about the statue. And Trump just fit
that perfectly."
INDECLINE is saying a lot with their
statues; “Can’t you see that Trump is a grotesque fool of a man hiding behind a
“suit” of power that you, the American voter, continues to allow him to hid
behind? Can’t you see he is the same powerful dictator as the hundred other
powerful dictators that only remained in power because the people around them allowed
it?” By making a fool out of Trump and tying him
to the dictators of years passed INDECLINED is appealing to the American
voter’s pathos. That appeal to pathos is a pretty powerful one.
Secondly, and less obviously, the statue seems
to appeal to ethos. By tying the statue to the Anderson story, INDECLINE is
forcing the American voter to see themselves as the emperor’s foolish subjects.
Much like the child in the story the American voter has a duty to point out
that Trump isn’t wearing anything, that is to say, he is unfit for the position
of President. If the American voter can reach this conclusion though Trumps
actions and words, then INDECLINE is going to show them. Ethically, should the
American people vote for a man that can be so easily compared to a dictator?
Should they vote for a man lacking any manhood? Or do they have an ethical duty
to vote for a candidate more fit for the job. These are the questions that the
art protest is asking the American voter to think about.
With all that being said, this
instillation doesn’t seem to have a lot of logos in it. It isn’t all that
logical as the American voter knows, logically, that Trump is a man who most
likely, isn’t quite that lacking in the genital department. And, logically,
even if he was it wouldn’t affect his abilities as president. Additionally,
there are better avenues to appeal to the American voter’s logic. Put out an
article listing all the terrible political decisions Trump has made, or publish
a photograph of Trump doing something illicit. But the point of the statues
isn’t logical, so logos isn’t a focus of this political moment.
As far as effectiveness, this art
protest seems to have somewhat achieved its purpose. INDECLINE and Ginger’s
piece achieved almost immediate internet fame (even though the statues
themselves only lasted about an hour in their respective public spaces) and
people immediately began to talk about, and analyze the art instillation. And,
they did succeed in making a fool of Trump. However, it is unclear if they actually
did change the minds of any American voters. If the main focus was to sway the conservative
vote by pointing out flaws in its candidate, then it was probably not successful.
Worked Cited
Holley, Peter. "These Protesters Wanted to Humiliate
‘Emperor’ Trump. So They Took off His Clothes."
Washington Post. The Washington Post, 19 Aug. 2016. Web. 12 Sept. 2016.
INDECLINECOM. "The Emperor Has No Balls." YouTube.
YouTube, 2016. Web. 16 Sept. 2016.
The beginning of your essay is really good. You effectively utilize a narrative style to draw the audience in and simultaneously establish a context with which you build the rest of the essay on. It was also good that you didn’t include too much context, knowing your audience would know who Trump is and understand the current political climate. Your analysis of purpose and audience are a little more confusing. Bringing in the “Emperor’s New Clothes” in the second paragraph speaks more to the rhetorical strategies used (i.e. pathos or logos) than establish the audience and identity. If you could add a sentence or two clearly identifying both, it would make this clearer, however it might also break up the flow and writing style of this section which are really good. Both are still discernable, but it isn’t explicit. It all depends on what you want to do, but more specificity couldn’t hurt.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis of pathos is also very engaging. Including the quote solidifying both the purpose and the appeals to accomplish it was a good move to make. This is a persuasive section, however if you included more of how the questions you ask after the quote invoke an emotional response in the audience in support of the statue’s purpose, it would strengthen this argument. The ethos portion of the argument is more shaky. I’m not sure how what you said relates to the trust the audience would have in INDECLINE (or INDELINCE, or INDECLINED, make sure you check the spelling of these throughout). You talk about an ethical motivation, but that relates more to an appeal to pathos than to the audience’s sense that the speaker or another person is trustworthy. Your argument for logos should be cleaned up a little bit. Your engaging language breaks down a little bit here but that’s not a huge problem. I would disagree with your logos argument, though. Isn’t it logical that if Trump is that unfit to be president that people shouldn’t vote for him?
Overall, you pose a convincing argument that is engaging throughout. The biggest thing you can do is to make everything a little more clear and obvious. Your analysis of purpose is well done and you wrote a great essay.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would say that this essay starts off very strong. It gives a very clear purpose as to what was in the mind of the artist and what he was trying to portray through his Art. I also feel that the analogy made between the emperor and Trump was very well done and that it serves its purpose in creating a context for the statues.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the analysis for pathos was very strong but it could also be made stronger. A large amount of Trump’s fan base likes him because he has so many masculine qualities. He acts like a big strong man and people like that. I think this art completely cuts into that vision of him that his voters have and may actually have been stronger in swaying people since it pulls away the strong masculine view that his voters have for him. Adding this context would show why INDECLINE’s pathos based argument is so strong and could help yours as well
I feel that the arguments given were well organized and followed a very clear and followable path. I think there are a few areas where some small revisions can be made to make a few more pieces of evidence more connected to their purpose. The suit of power argument would need to be fleshed out somewhat more in my opinion if it is to be used because it is unclear as to whether the audience of the actual statues was able to see this part of the purpose.
While the identity and audience are slightly mentioned, I think it would be helpful to expand on these a little more. What is it that “Ginger” truly believes about Donald trump (He’s fool hardy, ridiculous, unfit to be president, and can’t even see it himself) and who is he trying to direct this message to. What do these people that he’s trying to reach feel and believe about Donald Trump and why does this have an impact on these people specifically.
I think this is a great draft and a really good place to work from! The argument is very easy to follow and has very clear segments. I think connecting them all together a little will be what really needs to be done.
I would say that this essay starts off very strong. It gives a very clear purpose as to what was in the mind of the artist and what he was trying to portray through his Art. I also feel that the analogy made between the emperor and Trump was very well done and that it serves its purpose in creating a context for the statues.
I thought that the analysis for pathos was very strong but it could also be made stronger. A large amount of Trump’s fan base likes him because he has so many masculine qualities. He acts like a big strong man and people like that. I think this art completely cuts into that vision of him that his voters have and may actually have been stronger in swaying people since it pulls away the strong masculine view that his voters have for him. Adding this context would show why INDECLINE’s pathos based argument is so strong and could help yours as well
I feel that the arguments given were well organized and followed a very clear and followable path. I think there are a few areas where some small revisions can be made to make a few more pieces of evidence more connected to their purpose. The suit of power argument would need to be fleshed out somewhat more in my opinion if it is to be used because it is unclear as to whether the audience of the actual statues was able to see this part of the purpose.
While the identity and audience are slightly mentioned, I think it would be helpful to expand on these a little more. What is it that “Ginger” truly believes about Donald trump (He’s fool hardy, ridiculous, unfit to be president, and can’t even see it himself) and who is he trying to direct this message to. What do these people that he’s trying to reach feel and believe about Donald Trump and why does this have an impact on these people specifically.
I think this is a great draft and a really good place to work from! The argument is very easy to follow and has very clear segments. I think connecting them all together a little will be what really needs to be done.
(Deleted Last comment to change a word)
Hi Zoe,
ReplyDeleteYour post made me chuckle a couple times as I read about the various tactics INDECLINE used to make a fool of Trump. I think your argument is thought-out and only requires some local revisions. Like Colin said, your introductory paragraph is strong and made me want to keep reading more. The context was laid out perfectly and I had no questions about what exactly the statue was meant for as I continued reading. I think your description of the audience being the American voter could have more thought to it. Is the statue meant to stir up feelings in those who support Trump or those who do not? After reading your essay, I think the statue is targeted towards those who are voting for Trump, as they would be the ones offended and shocked by the statue showing his small genitalia, instead of seeing it as humorous. I agree with Farid and think adding the inspiration behind the statue, which was “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” gave the context even more weight and was enlightening.
I also agree with Colin that your analysis regarding pathos was thought-provoking. I liked how you described that laughing at the statue is not an emotion that people feel when viewing a Presidential candidate. This statue causes people to have feelings towards Trump that one would not want to have about their President. This forces them to rethink whether or not they would want him in charge of our country, and I thought this was an interesting point. On the other hand, I agree with Colin that your logos argument could be stronger. Obviously the statue itself is illogical, but I think the message behind it is very logical. If people’s reaction is to laugh at Trump and they see him as inadequate in regards to being a leader of our nation, then logically, why would they vote for him?
I think your conclusion paragraph should tie up your argument a little bit better. You analyze the effectiveness of the statue, but I think you could wrap up your entire paper by summarizing what you had discussed, instead of ending your paper with, “…then it was probably not successful.” Overall, your arguments were thought-out and engaging and like Colin and Farid said, there just needs to be some more clarity with a couple of your arguments.