Rhetorical Analysis: Analyzing Satire
The following prompt asks students to comment on an article in the Onion, a satirical online magazine.
The following is a mock feature article from the Onion, a publication devoted to humor and satire. Read the piece carefully. Then write an essay in which you analyze the strategies used in the article to satirize common ideas about art and the Renaissance.
The Onion
Following 1,000 years of cultural decline and societal collapse known as the Dark Ages, the 15th century brought forth the Renaissance, an unprecedented resurgence in learning and the arts, which four or five guys pretty much just strapped onto their backs and carried the whole way.
“Our research indicates that da Vinci, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, and Galileo basically hoisted the entire intellectual transformation of mankind onto their shoulders while everyone else just sat around being superstitious nimrods,” said Sue Viero of the Correr Museum of Art in Venice, Italy. “Here’s da Vinci busting his ass to paint such masterpieces as The Last Supper and the Mona Lisa, while some loser like Albrecht Dürer is doing these dinky little woodcuts that are basically worthless.
“And how pathetic is it that Masaccio wasted so much time churning out his frescoes that barely revolutionized linear perspective or naturalism at all, when without Michelangelo’s David, we wouldn’t even have a Renaissance to begin with?” Viero added. “Honestly, it’s not even friggin’ close.”
According to modern thought on the era, contributors to the Renaissance can be broken into two distinct groups: the brilliant few who, day in and day out, were thrusting society out of the depths of darkness and into the light of learning; and the rest of the so-called artists, mathematicians, and scientists, who were mostly all phoning it in.
Among those considered by historians not to have pulled their weight are Sandro Botticelli, Hugo van der Goes, Titian, and Italian humanist and total hanger-on Pico della Mirandola.
“So, Pico’s most famous philosophical work was Oration on the Dignity of Man,” scoffed Harvard philosophy professor Richard Nostrand. “I mean, come on. Compare that to Thomas More’s Utopia for—actually, you know what? Don’t bother. Because you can’t.”
While some claim the three-century-long movement would not have been possible without the contributions of lesser-known sculptors and thinkers, most scholars said they would challenge anyone to name an image by Jan van Eyck or Francesco Guicciardini that’s more iconic than, say, Donatello’s Mary Magdalene.
“It’s a no-brainer, really,” cultural anthropologist Diane Messinick said. “Mediocre talents like the playwright George Peele or renowned court painter Federico Brandani were pretty much the equivalent of the guy at work who brews a fresh pot of coffee while you’re busy making sure there’s still a company to come back to after everyone gets back from goddamn Christmas break.”
Rhetorical Analysis
Camille LeMeur
The title of this mock feature article from the Onion, “Four or Five Guys Pretty Much Carry Whole Renaissance,” speaks for itself. It’s outrageous. But just in case such an absurd claim wasn’t enough to tip us off on the fact that this article is, indeed, a satire, the author uses other means to convey the idea. A series of historical inaccuracies, added to the fact that the article pokes fun at even the most renowned artists, satirizes common ideas about the Renaissance and ultimately condemns the readers’ ignorance.
This article is based on a plethora of historical inaccuracies, ranging from sweeping generalizations to erroneous details. It starts off by stating that the Middle Ages were a time of “cultural decline and societal collapse,” which is a specious argument. Medieval schools of art or universities, like those we now know as Oxford and Cambridge, were clear precursors of the Renaissance. The article then states that all artists were “superstitious nimrods.” Again, this is false. Putting aside the derogatory substitution of “religious” for “superstitious,” the fact is that not all artists were imbued with religion. Raphael Sanzio, for instance, was an atheist, which was quite a revolutionary (not to mention worthy of persecution) notion for his time. Far from acting like “nimrods,” these artists innovated and challenged social standards. The article then goes on to say that Masaccio “barely revolutionized linear perspective,” when Masaccio was the first artist to use linear perspective in painting. Of course, he didn’t revolutionize the technique in the sense that he introduced it. Likewise, Pico della Mirandola, one of the most sought-after philosophers of his time, is called a “hanger-on,” a parasite, as if he hadn’t been supported by Lorenzo de’ Medici, one of the most significant patrons in the history of Italy. Through this deliberate accumulation of mistakes, the article satirizes common ideas about the Renaissance. Packing all of these stereotypes into a few neat paragraphs leads the readers to realize the absurdity of their oversimplified opinions.
Still, it’s possible that ignorant people reading an article satirizing their ignorance may not detect the irony. This is why the article, in addition to making intentional historical errors, also pokes fun at the most renowned artists. The artists we supposedly owe the whole Renaissance to seemed to be making a huge physical effort. They “strapped onto their backs and carried the whole way,” “hoisted (. . .) onto their shoulders,” “[thrust] society,” “pulled their weight.” All of these metaphors suggest manual labor, physical effort, and a peasant’s life rather than an intellectual’s. This is a subtle way of ridiculing the “four or five” artists the article puts on a pedestal. See, I know Da Vinci conceptualized an Ornithopter, but I have yet to see him build it, let alone fly it. Here, the discrepancy between intellectualism and physical labor highlights the satire. One artist, Donatello, is specifically mocked. We see this because two pseudo-experts contradict themselves. While one debases Dürer’s “dinky little woodcuts,” another praises Donatello’s Mary Magdalene, an equally drab-looking statue that is no less sculpted in wood. This paradox is another not-so-subtle hint to the readers. Who knows? If they can’t figure out that the article is historically inaccurate, maybe they’ll catch on to the fact that artists weren’t peasants, or maybe even that the article is mocking the very people it is glorifying.
And ultimately, the article’s goal is to criticize the readers’ lack of knowledge. This is most obvious in the tone of the article. The disparity between the register we expect to find and the one the speaker uses is what first strikes us as readers. One wouldn’t expect a curator to say that an artist “[isn’t] even friggin’ close,” or that he’s “phoning it in,” and especially not in a scholarly article. Simplistic adverbs like “basically” and “pretty much” are repeated to show that the article is merely making things easier for its readers. This language discredits the contents of the article. In this way, the article denounces its readers’ ignorance. You believe Renaissance stereotypes? Well, so do we! In fact, we’re rounding this up for you and summarizing it in the most basic of terms so we’re sure you’ll understand. When using a term like “loser,” the article is flat-out saying that its readers can’t understand terms a bit more intricate than colloquial jargon. The fact that the readers are being addressed in this way is the final indication of satire.
This article satirizes common ideas about the Renaissance by giving deliberately inaccurate historical facts, and by mocking the very artists it praises. Above all, it does this to criticize its readers’ ignorance. They are addressed as possibly dim-witted creatures in the hopes that, when faced with a satire of their beliefs, they become aware of how ignorant and ridiculous these beliefs are.