10.13125/2039-6597/1171
From New York and Cairo, to São Paulo and Istanbul; Guy Fawkes mask embodies the changing face of contemporary mass mobilizations around the world. The initial signification of the Guy Fawkes image that is rooted from the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, has gone under transformations through its employments in the comic book V for Vendetta (Alan Moore and David Lloyd, 1981) and the film version V for Vendetta (James McTeigue, 2006). Though, the recent utilization of the mask by the hacktivist group Anonymous has supplied a stronger link between the screen and the street. Through using Hans Belting’s image analysis approach that he had developed in the book, An Anthropology of Images (2011), this paper aims to analyze a sample of contagious embodiments of public images in twenty-first century screen culture—where one can designate a relationship of power between screens (physical media) and bodies (living media). The questions that are likely to emerge from such analysis will be discussed vis-a-vis the bodily potentials for political expression on the street today.  The employment of the public images by the protestors as a rhetorical tool will be examined and positioned in this context. 
image/jpeg
2039-6597
1171
7
en
S. Yigit Soncul
Between
From Screens to Streets: The Dissemination of Guy Fawkes Image in Physical and Living Media
Text.Serial.Journal
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/between
4
Ore Rotundo. Ethics of Public Intervention
2014-05-30
2014-03-07
2014-05-27
2014-06-04
1
S. Yigit Soncul
2014/05/30
10.13125/2039-6597/1171
Independent Researcher
2039-6597
7
From Screens to Streets: The Dissemination of Guy Fawkes Image in Physical and Living Media
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/between/article/download/1171/997
4
        From Screens to Streets
   The Dissemination of Guy Fawkes
  Image in Physical and Living Media
                                S. Yigit Soncul


       The image of Guy Fawkes seems to be transformed into a
contagious entity, which is present globally, in recent years. Its vast
circulation through conventional media can chronologically be first
connected to 1981 comic book V for Vendetta and the 2005 film of the
same name, where it has been utilised in the form of a mask. In this
form it has been employed by the hacktivist group Anonymous, too,
which signifies a further propagation by the means of screen media.
However, its frequent use in the post-2010 civil protest movements
around the world delineates a more complex picture. Even though
these events are not organically connected to each other at all, the
image of Guy Fawkes has been present in all of them: examples include
the so called Arab Spring movements starting in the late 2010 in
Tunisia, Occupy Movement in the United States in 2011, and the Gezi
Park protests in Turkey in 2013.
       This paper can be read as an attempt to discuss the underlying
conditions which makes such dissemination of images possible. That
being said, to do this, I will not choose to apply textual analysis to the
comic book or to the film and try to locate their cultural significance or
their relation to the contemporary social, political or historical
actuality. Instead, this paper shall investigate the dissemination of the
image of Guy Fawkes in the contemporary political context and its
relation to the contemporary networked media ecology. What I will try
to do is to crystallise the pervasive image in question and locate it in


Between, vol. IV, n. 7 (Maggio/May 2014)
S. Yigit Soncul, From Screens to Streets



the contemporary culture by tracing its history, so to say, of mediation.
To put it another way; this paper can be read as a study in diagrams of
propagation in visual culture. I will try to link the presences of such
image in these protests to the contemporary media ecology to open up
a debate on the politics of contemporary images.
       I will discuss this phenomenon as an image contagion that
realises itself by disseminating from one host to another. The host here
stands for physical, cultural or technological media, that is to say,
lifeless media: like a canvas or an LCD. But the host here stands for a
living medium, too: the human body. Before going any further I would
like to bring art historian and image theorist Hans Belting into
discussion, to clarify what I refer to when I say the image of Guy
Fawkes and with such taxonomy of media.
       In his book, An Anthropology of Images (2011), Belting
demonstrates a rather fresh perspective on the relationship between
images, media and bodies. He employs an approach that bears some
similarities to the works of W.J.T. Mitchell (2005) and David Freedberg
(1989) on the materiality and immateriality of the visual sphere. First I
want to quote Belting and then I will try to articulate his theory in
order to apply it to this phenomenon. Belting says:

         What in the realm of bodies and objects is their matter, in the
      world of pictures is their medium. As images by definition have
      no body, they need a medium in which they become embodied.
      (2011: 13)

       In Belting’s approach, the natures of the body and the medium
resemble each other closely through their materiality. They can be both
embodiers of images. Images, in a sense, travel between them. A
painting, for example, is an image that is being embodied on the
canvas, whereas bodies are capable of embodying images through
gestures, body paintings, tattoos, masks and so on. Then, through this
angle, images can be embodied by a diversity of media; and they are
transmissible, since one particular image can move on to be present on
different objects. Images do exist, and have a path of their own (a life of

2
                                                   Between, vol. IV, n. 7 (Maggio/May 2014)



their own as Mitchell would put it), though they are only present in the
world of objects when they become embodied—like viruses which are
only active within living hosts, images are only physically visible on
material media (living or not). As the relations between the bodies and
the media create the channel for such dissemination, the image stands
as the unit of contagion, and in this case the unit seems to be the image
of Guy Fawkes.
       Yet, is the human body merely an embodier of this virus—like a
screen? Not exactly. What is significantly different in the domain of the
living body, comparing to the technological medium, is its additional
capacity to perceive images and to create internal images, like dreams
or awake internal visualisations. However, as Belting notes:

       When external pictures are re-embodied as our own images, we
     substitute for their fabricated medium our own body, which,
     when it serves in this capacity, turns into a living or natural
     medium. (Ibid.: 16)

     Then, in the interval in which we embody an image, our capacity
to generate internal images is no longer at focus, as our body is
reduced to be a mere physical medium: at least from the perspective of
all but the subject who is embodying the particular image. So, let’s take
a look at the image of Guy Fawkes through this angle.




            Fig 1 Crispijn van de Passe, 17th Century.




                                                                                         3
S. Yigit Soncul, From Screens to Streets



     This image, and even the mask, predates the comic book, though
not in an identical form. Historically, Fawkes was one of the members
of a Catholic resistance movement who unsuccessfully attempted to
blow up the Houses of Parliament in 1605 on the 5th of November.
After this attempt the Parliament of England passed an act which
rendered this date a celebration day for the failure of the plot. This date
is called Guy Fawkes night or Bonefire night, which is still actively
celebrated across Great Britain. In some points in history, Guy Fawkes
masks have also been used in this celebration, so their origin, if there is
one, is in the streets.




Fig 2 V for vendetta, 1981                 Fig 3 V for vendetta, 2005




      With the graphic novel V for Vendetta and with its film
adaptation, Guy Fawkes was transformed into a secular hero of
positive significance—its political charge for some has changed—and
the image became closer to the version that is arguably the most
frequently employed today. Mostly present, mainly in the form of a
mask. In the late 2000s and early 2010s, we see this image across a

4
                                                  Between, vol. IV, n. 7 (Maggio/May 2014)



variety of media: both technical and biological. The hacktivist group
Anonymous, employed this image as its face, so to speak, and we can
partly hold it responsible for such vast dissemination.
       The turn, though, came after 2010 when this image, which is
generally embodied on a mask, and therefore through people – human
bodies - wearing it, started to show up in protests that are not strictly
connected to each other; in Sao Paulo, New York City, Istanbul, and
Cairo. Different geographical locations, different purposes or
conditions: close temporalities: the same image. Even though its most
common version is taken from V for Vendetta, we can also see this
image contaminating and merging with other ones. A striking example
has been posted to Twitter (2013). In this image we see the Turkish
activist Ethem Sarisuluk, who was eventually shot in the head by the
police and lost his life in the Gezi protests. One of the most prominent
left-wing hacktivist groups of Turkey, Red Hack, posted: a
combination of Ethem’s face and the mask after this incident.




Fig 4 The mask at the protests around the globe




                                                                                        5
S. Yigit Soncul, From Screens to Streets



       Then, this image is of shifting signification and contaminates
other images as well. So why, then, this image occupies such space in
the contemporary world, where it is being embodied both on the
screen and also, as we can see, on the streets through human bodies.
Both by physical and living media. To restate it from another angle:
this image contaminates various media, including human bodies and
even other images, but what does it try to achieve? I think this should
be read with the screen culture of 21st century. As the late visual
culture scholar Anne Friedberg encapsulates: «Screens have become a
pervasive part of the daily experience» (2009: 6) in the present century.
       Whether it is the screen of a smartphone that one keeps in its
pocket, moving along with its body, or a screen of a closed-circuit
system that, rather literally, helps others to screen you on the street or
in a train station, this entity seems omnipresent. The function of the
body as embodier of images is of course not a gift of recent technology
nor fundamentally related to the screen, though such global
contaminations could be related to the omnipresence of such entity, as
screens are the face of ever-reaching and decentralised networks and
webs. Most of all, the very existence of this image in this scale
emphasises the channels it has travelled. So what are these channels –
using screens as their “faces” – really capable of doing?
       One of the functions of global networks is that they act as
channels of power relations. Even on the very surface of this case: we
can see that a dissemination in such network can dictate a certain
embodiment or an arrangement in real life for real bodies. Thus, it has
immediate resonances with the Foucauldian conception of bio-power.
As the screens reach out to our very personal spaces and stick to our
bodies wherever we move, rendering our actions vulnerable to
monitoring, the scale and mode of operation of both control and
intervention have changed.
       But the function of these channels may be at least double-edged.
They can be tools for exercising power on life, but they can also be the
point where resistance to such mechanisms arises. And I think the
dissemination of Guy Fawkes image invokes such stance: the double
quality of such connectedness. Here I want to quote two other remarks

6
                                            Between, vol. IV, n. 7 (Maggio/May 2014)



from Belting on the nature of the image and the mask, which I think
may help to illuminate our case. On the ambivalence of the nature of
physical embodiments of images, Belting says:

         The image is present in its medium (otherwise we could not see
     it), and yet it refers to the absence of that entity of which it is a
     representation (2011: 20)

He also evaluates a parallel nature for the mask:

        [W]ith its single surface, the mask accomplishes both
     concealment and exposure. Like the image it draws its vitality
     from an absence, which it replaces with a substitute presence.
     (Ibid.: 93)

     The image of Guy Fawkes materializes on both screens and streets
in a time that can be seen as characterised by a strong relationship
between absence and presence. Presence of bodies on the streets to
claim political existence: to claim an absence. And this is also
intensified with its frequent use as a mask or, to put it another way, its
embodiment in the form of a mask that also refers to a relationship
between absence and presence. Presence of the image refers to an
absence to be fulfilled. Thus, I argue, without even leaving a need for
analysing the texts and the events that may have influenced it, the
dissemination of the image of Guy Fawkes, ever-propagated and
masked, invokes a “revolutionary” stance. If you assume revolutionary
act as an act that is present for an absence. And the masked individual
as such becomes the place where image, body and medium are present
at the same time: a (re)mediated image embodied by the material of the
mask (medium) and the human body. A triad that is essential to the
21st century screen culture, which may be providing the spatio-
temporality of change.




                                                                                  7
S. Yigit Soncul, From Screens to Streets




                                       Works cited
Belting, Hans, An Anthropology of Images, Princeton, Princeton Universi-
    ty Press, 2011.
Freedberg, David, The Power of Images, London-Chicago, The Universi-
    ty of Chicago Press, 1989.
Friedberg, Anne, The Virtual Window, Cambridge, The MIT Press, 2009.
Mitchell, W. J. T., What Do Pictures Want?, Chicago, The University of
    Chicago Press, 2005.



                                           Sitography
Twitter, twitter.com/TheRedHack/status/349260531179352065 web (last
   accessed 07/03/2014).



                                      Filmography
V for Vendetta, Dir. James McTeigue, USA, 2005.



                                           The author
        S. Yigit Soncul

S. Yigit Soncul is an independent researcher based in London and
Istanbul, as well as a part-time lecturer on screen cultures in the
department of Film and Television in Istanbul Bilgi University. His
research interests mainly focus on abjection, embodiment, bio-politics,
screen cultures, media theory, continental philosophy and public
images. He completed his BA in Istanbul Bilgi University, Film and
Television Department and MA in Goldsmiths, University of London,
Film and Screen Studies programme. His master’s dissertation
investigated the relationship between the Renaissance culture of

8
                                       Between, vol. IV, n. 7 (Maggio/May 2014)



dissection and the contemporary zombie phenomenon. He is the co-
organiser of the 2013 conference, Bodies on Screen, which was held at
Goldsmiths, University of London.



                             The paper
Date sent: 16/02/2014
Date accepted: 30/04/2014
Date published: 30/05/2014



                   How to quote this paper
Soncul, S. Yigit, “From Screens to Streets: The Dissemination of Guy
Fawkes Image in Physical and Living Media”, Between, IV.7 (2014),
http://www.Between-journal.it/




                                                                             9
