Representative form and the visual ideograph: The Iwo Jima image in editorial cartoons

Holocaust Cartoons as Ideographs

“…As Foss (1992) argued, images actively reflect beliefs, attitudes, and values of a society rather than exclusively reflecting the views of their creators. Thus, cartoons are not interpreted by cartoonists; rather, they are actively explained by their audiences (Edwards & Winkler, 1997). Therefore, in the case of the Holocaust cartoons, I do not assess the cartoonists' motivations.…”

“…This trait provides an opportunity for many people to participate in the debates and give their interpretations of the artifact. Edwards and Winkler (1997) in their study of the political cartoons of Iwo Jima argued that Rosenthal's (1945) original photograph (see Figure 7) functions in the cartoons as an ideograph to represent "collective commitment to normative goals that transcend the military environment" (Edwards & Winkler, 1997, p. 300). For example, the cartoon drawn by Richard Morin in 1990, manipulates the original Iwo Jima image to criticize the Gulf War and "belittle(s) the motivation for U.S. involvement in the Gulf War to be one of economic self-interest" (Edwards & Winkler, 1997, p. 302;see Figure 8).…”

“…Undoubtedly, we cannot presume to understand all the ideas behind each cartoon, but we can try to read the messages through the depiction of situations and characters. Edwards and Winkler (1997) argued that political cartoons often suggest a central ideograph or representative form that functions ideographically to "create and reaffirm the identity of the body politic" (p. 295). They stated that a representative form should fit McGee's (1980) definition of the ideograph.…”

“…Edwards and Winkler (1997) suggested the theory of representative form of ideograph to analyze the political cartoons of Iwo Jima that follow a central motif or central subject. To build their theory, they did not rely only on the visual theories such as iconography and metaphor that focus on the denotative functions of the image.…”

“…Finally, Edwards and Winkler Morin (1990). Reproduced from Edwards and Winkler (1997) concluded that "no single language term sums up the interpretation of the image" (p. 302). In this sense, images are considered ideographs that have the potential to permit different interpretations of social and political norms.…”