From the first stimulus drawn by Mark Parisi of an elderly man misplacing his dentures when they were attached to his behind, it is obvious that the folly being mocked is that of the elderly. The cartoon draws attention and exaggerates the forgetful nature one acquires when one is of old age and uses this as the ‘butt’ of the joke to evoke laughter from the audience. Although some people might find the cartoon amusing, the cartoon might also be taken as offensive, depending on the values of the viewer. For example, someone who is elderly themselves might see the cartoon as an insult as it stereotypes all elderly as incompetent and forgetful. Whereas someone who is does not regard elderly very highly, say someone who is a generation away, teenager perhaps, might share the share views of the cartoonist and find the portrayal of the elderly highly amusing. Because I come from an Asian culture and it is a cultural belief that our elders are superior to us, I do not find this cartoon funny; on the contrary, I in fact find it rather rude, because my values oppose those being reflected in the text. It can therefore be said that authors make certain assumptions about the audience while constructing a humorous text as certain cultural assumptions are needed to evoke humour, as different values are evident in different cultures.
The second stimulus from freakingnews.com, is highly dependant on the viewer having cultural knowledge of Steve Irwin, an Australian icon notorious for his carefree attitude towards ‘man eating’ creatures. The author has made the assumption that the audience has knowledge of the past actions of Steve Irwin holding his new born baby, while feeding the crocodiles. This picture parodies his actions, depicting a Steve Irwin holding out his baby to a menacing shark. The picture also exaggerates the ignorance of Steve Irwin’s actions and the audience is positioned to see Steve Irwin as someone who lacks intelligence. Because people always find humour in laughing at the stupidity of at people, the picture was constructed to evoke humour from the idiocy of Steve Irwin’s actions. Therefore someone who does not know Steve Irwin will not find this funny, someone who is a fan of Steve Irwin, for example, might find the picture offensive, similarly someone who opposes black humour might also find the picture offensive as it attempts to evoke humour from a life threatening situation. On the other hand, someone who dislikes Steve Irwin might find this picture funny as they agree with the values being endorsed in the text – Steve Irwin is an idiot.
We are positioned to laugh at something that is inevitable to everyone – getting old. We as Australians are positioned to laugh at Australian icons ‘feeding’ their children to vicious animals. Could it be that because we feel inclined to laugh at something ‘humorous’ without thinking about the more complex ideas and critique underpinned, we fail to see an issue for what it really is? Could it be that because we do not take anything seriously anymore, humour has turned us callous and ignorant, finding even the most morbid of situations humorous rather than see them for what they are - morbid? When you really think about it, does this deserve a laugh? Is humour really funny? I certainly don’t think so.
