Remember these images? [Thanks to Comtesse and her
excellent site for some of these.]
No, I'm not proclaiming that in 1992 Morrissey really was "flirting with fascism" with this imagery. I've posted them to remind everyone of the actual imagery used-- mostly together, around the same time, along with "Your Arsenal" and interview remarks about various things such as his enjoyment of "Romper Stomper"-- and to point out that his use of these images is more or less exactly the same as his use of all the other images we associate with him or The Smiths: Pat Phoenix, James Dean, Elvis Presley, Shelagh Delaney, pictures all used on tour backdrops or record sleeves or used as props in a photo shoot. And when we think of this whole galaxy of images he has associated with himself and his music, we think of them
fondly. They all come to have rich meanings and associations. Sometimes we look at the cover star and think of the music, other times vice versa. (I wonder if any of us thinks of "Meat Is Murder" without also seeing the soldier from "The Year of the Pig".) As Jo Slee said in
Peepholism, "The pictorial images he has chosen-- whether for a record sleeve, a t-shirt or a stage backdrop-- offer a beguiling and ambiguous subtext to the main event".
The pictures add a lot subtext. That much is clear. And because he has such an unerring eye for provocative images, the subtext they create is both interesting and, of course, by definition, not explicit. You're not really sure what Diana Dors "means" as a backdrop any more than you know what the two skinhead girls "mean", but surely it is apparent that the lack of explicit connection is a little different in one case than the other. But whatever they may be "saying", Morrissey has created a montage of images that fascinate him aesthetically. His imagery is a gallery of his obsessions and as such, I would argue, every fan sees in every image he uses the warm glow of his approval, whether she likes the image or not. To say otherwise is to imply carelessness, and as Jo Slee and others will attest, his use of imagery is astute and always careful. We also know that his allusions to this world of pop stars, actors, writers, and other oddities permeate his words, too. A line from Elizabeth Smart here, a reference to Carry On there, maybe just the names of Italian film directors or French actors tossed in. They all work to suggest meanings that Morrissey doesn't spell out-- subtext. In Morrissey's art subtext plays a vitally important role.
Everything I'm saying here is obvious to fans. I'm repeating what we all know to be true.
I'm repeating it so that when we look at those images again we might understand that there is just no way of wishing them away as "ironic commentaries". If we say that they contain in themselves both proof of his utter fascination with them and also a condemnation of their less agreeable sides we are at least admitting he likes them to some degree. Danny is right that "Sweet And Tender Hooligan" mocks the middle-class brilliantly but in so doing it also betrays some affection for the outsider who shows up society's hypocrisy (one reason Wilde is adored, incidentally). Elsewhere, our taking comfort in knowing he disapproves of football hooligans in "We'll Let You Know" doesn't by any stretch remove the bittersweet note of irony the song closes with: "We are the last truly British people you will ever know". He has a complicated position about his feelings on the changes he sees in England. His thoughts are extremely difficult to unravel because he is expressing them mostly obliquely, either with irony or in some kind of subtext. Very little of it is argued plainly and openly.
As an artist that's his right. As a fan I appreciate the fact that nothing is spelled out. I like that his imagination isn't castrated by a sense of political correctness. In the Eighties, while Bono was waving white flags onstage, It meant so much more to me to work out, for myself, why Morrissey would condemn war rather than having him appear at a charity concert bellowing "Wake up, people, war is baaaaad!" Ultimately, with all these allusions to England, if it gets people asking themselves about how and why the identity of their country is changing, that's a good thing. Asking those questions doesn't mean coming to racist conclusions, it just means confronting the subject, as Billy Bragg has done, for instance. The NME's recent attacks were horrendous precisely because they avoided a "dialogue" about what they claim is their pet cause. But I'll say again: if he is suggesting all these questions using subtext, irony, innuendo, stray allusions, and then totally avoiding any explanations in interviews, it is understandable that this is a problem ("controversy") for people who recognize that
any kind of apparent romanticization of racist thugs, no matter how small or mitigated by "artistic license", can have real-world consequences.