Today Sat Sun
It is forcast to be Chance of Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on May 24, 2013
Chance of Rain
17°/6°
It is forcast to be Clear at 11:00 PM EDT on May 25, 2013
Clear
22°/10°
It is forcast to be Clear at 11:00 PM EDT on May 26, 2013
Clear
14°/6°

13 Comments

news

2010 Villain: Jason Kieffer

kieffer_final.jpg
Illustration by Jeremy Kai/Torontoist.


Torontoist is ending the year by naming our Heroes and Villains—Toronto’s very best and very worst people, places, and things over the past twelve months. From December 13–17: the Villains! From December 20–24, the Heroes! And, from December 27–30, you can vote for Toronto’s Superhero and Supervillain of the year.


Apparently, Cabbagetown is the place for rabble-gazing in Toronto. It’s here that cartoonist Jason Kieffer gleaned the material for his book, The Rabble of Downtown Toronto, a collection of forty profiles of street people, many of whom are homeless, drug-addicted, or mentally disabled. Here we find the sensitively named “Escaped Mental Patient,” who “urinates & masturbates in public” and is identified by a “weird growth on neck,” or “Crazy Hand Lady,” marked by her “greasy hair” and “screaming fits…accompanied by hysterical laughter” [PDF].
Kieffer, who catalogues these individuals like a biologist would specimen samples, has divided readers.
Some, like the Star’s Joe Fiorito—who called it “a nasty little book”—have called Rabble out for making jokes at the expense of its usually homeless subjects. In 2007, after publishing early versions of some of the profiles that appear in the book on BlogTO, Kieffer was asked to stop contributing to the site after its readership “went insane” over the subject matter, he says.
Meanwhile, some others have argued that Kieffer’s project is a call for Torontonians to pay more attention to the “rabble,” a position that Kieffer himself has adopted. He writes on his website: “I see marginalized individuals on a daily basis who try and connect with people around them only to be ignored, written off, or labeled.”
But that’s exactly what Kieffer has himself done. In Rabble, he breaks down his subjects to their basest, most conspicuous qualities, stripping them of any dignity. Like a macabre textbook, the book points out what Kieffer sees as their weaknesses and idiosyncrasies, defining them by their disabilities. In doing this, he transforms individual circumstances into crude caricatures. Wanting Torontonians to stop ignoring the homeless is a noble cause, but Kieffer’s gone about it all the wrong way. He might have interviewed the subjects and looked at the factors that could have contributed to their predicaments, shifting the focus away from their street personas and onto their humanity. Instead, he turns them into circus freaks.
Not only is Kieffer’s book an exercise in how not to raise awareness of a social problem, but representing real people in a bizarre tourist guide of where and how to find them—it even has maps—is inherently problematic. In Rabble, we have a group of vulnerable subjects, many of whom work and sleep on the streets. An encyclopedic catalogue of their weaknesses and idiosyncrasies could even potentially target them for violence or persecution. It also shows, of course, a gross disrespect for their privacy.
Numerous times since its publication, Kieffer has defended the book by saying that it’s not supposed to be funny. We don’t doubt him. We wonder, however, whether it is supposed to be mean. With smug superiority, Kieffer treats his subjects as just that: subjects. To him, these are people to be studied, scrutinized, pointed at. At its core, The Rabble of Downtown Toronto, and Kieffer, show a fundamental lack of compassion, which is, of course, what most of the “rabble” need most.

Comments

  • http://undefined Marc Lostracco

    I still get the impression that Kieffer still doesn’t understand exactly why some of his work offends people. Why, for example, ending one of his comics with “You faggit-ass piece of shit!” (his spelling, not mine) for no discernible reason could be problematic (this specific strip was eventually removed by BlogTO). He likely sees the backlash as a lack of appreciation for his art, when in reality, it’s based more in everyone’s appreciation for good judgment.

  • http://undefined Salguod

    Right, well while i have no objection to a constructive critique of the work, i find this “villain” business pretty obnoxious.
    Fully articulated my feelings here on our own blog.
    http://sequential.spiltink.org/?p=5951#comment-1131
    Cross posting them here.
    Really as much as i think Jason fumbled the launch and presentation of his book, and that it is a flawed work. I think the pile on to demonize him is getting way overblown. People are ignoring anything he says to make their own point. For example…

    [link] “Meanwhile, some others have argued that Kieffer’s project is a call for Torontonians to pay more attention to the “rabble,” a position that Kieffer himself has adopted. He writes on his website: “I see marginalized individuals on a daily basis who try and connect with people around them only to be ignored, written off, or labeled.”
    But that’s exactly what Kieffer has himself done. In Rabble, he breaks down his subjects to their basest, most conspicuous qualities, stripping them of any dignity. Like a macabre textbook, the book points out what Kieffer sees as their weaknesses and idiosyncrasies, defining them by their disabilities.”

    Yes and no. It is exactly what he’s done and Emily Landau has cherry picked the quote out of context despite having read the full text or at least having had the option [she links to it] – Jason is depicting the way he perceives the larger community sees them. He’s using a time honored roll of a satirist to play the part of the group he satirizes and illustrating how objectionable their attitudes are. For full context this is what Jason wrote in his own defense.

    About The Rabble of Downtown Toronto
    I grew up and still live in Cabbagetown, an area of Toronto that’s known to be kind of eccentric. The neighbourhood is made up of an interesting, diverse group of people. I really love the place and I spend a lot of my time walking though its street and hanging out there. Often, while I’m out and about, I’ll encounter people behaving in ways that are considered to be outside the norm and, being the observant person that I am, I take notice. I also find myself regularly being stopped by “odd” individuals who want to talk with me. A few a my friends have commented on the fact that when they hang out with me, they more often have encounters with “strange” people. I’m told the reason is that I’ve got a kind face and I’m that an approachable individual.
    In the summer, a lot of my time is spent hanging out in local parks. I like to sit on benches, people watching. And as a result, I’ve had many conversations with homeless individuals, drunks, oddballs etc. who sit down beside me and strike up a conversation. I love when this happens because I love people and I love conversing with them, no matter how strange they may seem to others. And meeting new people always makes my day.
    I feel that taking notice of these individuals is important. If I see someone screaming on a street corner, I stop and listen to what they have to say and most of the time, I can see why they’re angry; they’re yelling about things that I’d like to yell about too. It saddens me to see people turn their heads or run away afraid when they encounter these situations. I see marginalized individuals on a daily basis who try and connect with people around them only to be ignored, written off, or labelled. This seems to be the standard response from Torontonians. I feel that many people in the city are afraid of confronting these issues and thinking about them; they would rather avoid them and pretend that the issues and the individuals do not exist.
    Over the years, I’ve experienced a lot of sad and disturbing things that have effected me deeply. I try and discuss these problems as much as I can. I’m always telling my friends stories about the encounters I’ve had with people and we talk about them till no end. Some people seem to be uncomfortable discussing these issues; they treat them as though they are out of bounds. But I feel that drawing attention to and trying to work through problems is the healthy approach.
    As an individual, I feel powerless when I consider the state of things in Toronto. There are so many homeless and alienated people out on the street. All I ever hear is people talking about how sad the situation is and how we need to help these individuals, but when I look at the street, it seems the same to me as it did twenty years ago. I just keep seeing people ignoring others who are in need. And in some ways, it seems that the city is moving backwards. We recently created anti-panhandling laws and now many of the shelter beds are in the process of being moved uptown. I guess that’s one way to deal with people who don’t fit in: take away their rights and displace them.
    My way of dealing with these issues has been to create art. I started writing and drawing comics about the streets of Toronto ten years ago. Over the years, I experimented with my approaches to these issues and the medium. At first, I produced straightforward third person narratives. These stories were about odd people in the city and most of them were written from a purely sympathetic point of view. Some of comics were first person narratives; I’d depict myself walking around the city talking with people on the street. I even did a second person narrative from the point of view of a homeless man. I’ve taken a different approach with The Rabble of Downtown Toronto that I think is both compelling and challenging.
    The book is written from a sort of cold, detached point of view, one that I feel represents the attitudes of most Torontonians towards the people I’ve written about. Ideally, this will cause readers to examine their own voice and think about how it contributes to the way people on the streets of Toronto are perceived. I hope that my comic book helps draw attention to and raise awareness of the reality of the situation in our city. I also hope that it causes people to reconsider how they view the individuals I’ve depicted, no matter where see themselves sitting in relation to them. There are no easy answers to the problems our city faces and my book provides no solution to these issues; but that is not its role. It is up to the reader take the book, face the content and then work though the problems for themselves.
    I see The Rabble of Downtown Toronto as being one of my contributions to the conversation. I’d like to encourage people read what I’ve written, take the time to consider the contents and then discuss the book and the issues that it raises in different forums. I hope they can look beyond the artist to the larger problems at hand and as a result, move the discussion forward toward new understandings.
    Jason Kieffer
    March, 2010

    I think having looked at the book and some of his other work, you can make a fair case that his skills are not 100% up to the job he attempted to do, and from what i understand he didn’t control the PR behind his book as much as he should have, failing to present it with the full context till after the uproar thus putting him on the defensive from the moment the back lash started. The “about” text above should have been the forward to the book from the start and part of the press pack.
    And from a playing it safe editorial perspective, he would have been well served to make it more a work of fiction in the details. Make up composite characters rather than true homeless figures.
    But not because what he wanted to do was wrong.
    Because it would buffer him and his subjects from the ridicule they both inevitably will get from either side. That being said, the argument for privacy and consent when no real names and crude cartoons are employed is extremely over played. When the state takes our photos and privet security has more eyes than the sate, and you can’t even get a video from the rental shop without your credit card or a sin number….please. By the argument made against him, no one could even write their own biography, they would have to reveal too much about other people in their lives.
    Artist have the right to depict their surroundings, and these folks are not exactly in hiding, they live out there eccentricities in the streets. Kieffer wanted to document the truth of their lives and conditions, in a “catalog” that presents the reader with an opportunity to re-evaluate how they relate to them. You are meant to question the appropriateness of it, of the way they are described.
    If you’re a saint, one who never though who’s that nutty crack whore, then bully for you. But your one of few. Most pick and choose who they empathize with. I hang with a pretty damn liberal and sensitive lot. But all the same, few Women I’ve walked with have had any empathy in their voice when pointing out the possibly schizophrenic man with his hand in his pants, talking to themselves and cussing as they pass – Rather they tend to fear for their safety even know 99% of the time they have nothing to fear. Most guys no mater how sensitive see a homeless woman and comment on her attractiveness rather than empathize. Blind fear, gallows and black humor are the norm not the exception.
    Lie to my face and say it’s not so.
    So if you’re shocked by the way Kieffer presents them in his book, you’ve probably been ignoring the way you talk about them sometimes yourself. And if your assuming it’s the way he thinks of them ALL the time, your ignoring what he’s had to say about it, or assuming he’s a liar.
    It’s incredibly week to attack him for making people who already wander around the street defenselessly and unprotected, as any more vulnerable with his work. These are folks who before now have been ignored or even treated as objectionable by their very presence.
    Why is it no one thinks for a moment that in mapping where homeless and kooky street folk can be found, someone might not use that information to seek them out and help them? I wonder what social norms we might be assuming to think the only outcome could be greater danger. It couldn’t possibly be that this is the kind of questions the book is meant to inspire at all though, eh?
    Frankly If you went looking for one of them before the book was published you would have little trouble finding them. And you’d probably not be stopped if you were mean or threatening to them most of the time. I know for a fact growing up in Toronto that not only do street people seldom get protection from other citizens, but even at time have been beaten and kicked by cops.
    Seen it with my own eyes so don’t dare tell me i lie. I’ve been the one to put my ass on the line and stepped up with a friend or two to call a beat cop out for kicking a drunk homeless man on a couple of occasions back in the 90′s. Not to make myself out as a hero, frankly most the time I’ve seen such a thing i’ve been too cowardly or too busy with my own life to do a thing. Like most of us.
    At best many times if cops are involved the homeless drunk and mentally ill can look forward to being carted off to a facility – often one of those they have run away from – as some form of protection. Though who exactly is being protected is often a good question .
    I worked at a Deli across from 1001 queen for a summer in 88 and saw how the day pass patients were mistreated by even the hospital staff if they found themselves in the same line for a cup of coffee. Hopefully 20 years later it’s improved but my point is this is not a society that treats the marginal well. It’s absurd to think Kieffer’s book is going to make that worse. Lashing out at him is picking on an easy and himself a poorly defended subject.
    “Toronto the good” has fallen a long way, and while i love my old home town it’s become Toronto the mean selfish and spiteful in many quarters. And those thinking they are defending the homeless with such a staunch PC attack on an artist who is engaged in satire, do nothing in the effort directly to help the homeless in the long run, and probably helps sell books so if they are really against his…..
    With all this talk of how smug Kieffer comes off as, it seems to me few have read what he had to say about his work with anything like an open mind. It’s one thing to critique a work constructively. But that’s not what has been going on.
    Any author depicting the seedy has been attacked for it. Charles Bukowski gets lambasted for it. Crumb has been attacked for being racist or sexist, every satirist who’s dared laugh at their own foibles or someone else’s or societies, or who has simply depicted them for all their sad glory has been. It goes with the territory and so be it.
    But “villain”?
    Now you’re just being nasty.
    So Dear Torontoist, i call you out for being a Villain, for tearing down someone who you helped promote at the start. Boo on hypocrisy.
    Salgood Sam – publisher of Sequential

  • http://undefined Crimson Cass

    Torontoist, in keeping with Salgood Sam’s argument above, you might consider your collective attitude to people outside of your social norms, such as the voyeur Zanzibar dancer photos that you splashed all over the internet. That was really inappropriate.

  • http://undefined Cpt. Sunshine

    If the best you can do is to say “I’m adding to the discussion” you’re basically saying “I’m doing nothing”. We don’t need more people talking, we need more people doing.
    This is what I see. I see a man making comics or art or whatever about the most vulnerable people and then turning around and making money off of it. To try and justify that by saying “I’m adding to the conversation” is ridiculous.
    Fuck that. If he really cared about the homeless in this city he would donate the proceeds of this book to a local shelter.

  • http://undefined Patrick

    Thanks for providing more context to this story. I knew Jason for a while in high school and suspected, barring him having gone through some radical change of personality, that the story was more nuanced than how Mr. Fiorito saw it.
    I find the process that the press uses in finding villains to be very suspicious. Usually the target is a marginal or average person, not someone in a position of responsibility, and they get the blame for some major issue placed on their shoulders. Such as the TTC booth attendant, who feel asleep on his shift and found himself carrying the blame for all the TTC’s faults, or maybe a wider sense among Torontonians that our city’s institutions are degrading.
    Almost all of us are guilty of ignoring the homeless, and we feel bad about it, so we look for an external target to transfer that self-blame onto.

  • http://undefined JacobL

    Kieffer’s intentions may be good, but in my opinion his book fails, if the objective is to get readers to empathize with its subjects, and to get them talking about the issues it raises. To do that you humanize your subjects, make them more relatable and real, not less. Turning them into cartoon caricatures just makes it easier to dismiss or ignore them, or see them as nothing more than some kind of weird joke.
    I’m not sure he deserves the title of Villain, though. He’s just an artist who made a piece of bad art.

  • http://undefined Solex

    Kieffer’s intentions may have been good, but for me, I also can see why Torontoist called him a villain of 2010; this book and the artwork involved seems to me like just bashing people when they’re down.
    Ironically enough, traditional superhero books like Superman tackled the issue of homelessness in a more dignified way than Kieffer did; one issue of the now defunct title The Adventures Of Superman (#462, December 1989) focused on a intern at the Daily Planet who unbeknownst to everybody is sleeping at the Daily Planet in a storage room because she has no home of her own. Allie reveals that she has been living in the building for three years since her mother became ill and the medical bills wiped out her savings. One panel in particular captures the shared pain. Perry, Lois, Clark, and Jimmy all stand apart and stare at different parts of the floor as Allie says, “I couldn’t let you know I was really living here. I … I was too ashamed.” This shocks Perry White into action; he gives her a living raise and lets her stay in his ner-do-well son Jerry White’s old room in his apartment with him and his wife Alice, and writes a editorial about the plight of the homeless while scenes of Superman and other Planet staffers helping the homeless are shown. This story does not minimize the plight of the homeless while showing a happy ending at the same time-an amazing thing for mainstream comics to do.
    It’s sad that an issue of a mainstream comic book from 1989 can talk about the plight of the homeless better than a alternative graphic novel of 2010 can.

  • http://undefined jacob scheier

    Seriously, Torontoist? You’re putting an artist in the same category as the suspension of our rights (G20) and bed bugs. Patrick Cameron is entirely right – what people really don’t like about Kieffer’s comic is it reminds us of how little we are doing to solve the problem. Kieffer identifies his subjects in the way they are seen by us – e.g. ‘Crazy Hand Lady.’ Also, not only has Emily Landau quoted Kieffer out of context, she also ignores the fact that on the last page of The Rabble of Downtown Toronto, Kieffer depicts himself. He becomes one of the subjects of the book, something which I guess Landau found rather inconvenient for her attack.
    I both like Jason Kieffer personally, and respect him as an artist. But if neither were the case, I would still feel uncomfortable with any publication (and I use the term loosely) that takes the tactic of criticizing art by, quite literally, villainizing the artists.

  • http://profiles.google.com/dmitryillustration Dmitry Bondarenko

    I think its really ironic that your blog is stigmatizing an artist (an individual of modest means who has little sway over systemic problems facing this city) for apparently stigmatizing others. Obviously, judging by the debate generated here, a critique of this book and what its author is trying to say is in order. But this – an article that implies guilt in its title, is hardly the place to do it. This is a show of outright hypocrisy, and by your own standards should land you a place in your own villains/pests column.

    Villainizing creative individuals for the shortcomings of their work, even for the sake of political correctness, is not a way to foster discussion of difficult issues. I for one demand a higher standard from a blog that represents itself with the name of the city I call home. I think your publication owes Jason a public apology and a closer examination of his book. Using a blog with a readership like yours to outright stigmatize a struggling artist over a question of taste is an obscene thing to have done.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    A closer examination of the article above will reveal it says little about the artist and a lot about the book he produced, which he is ultimately responsible for. Taking his defence and intentions at face value, the criticism of the book is still valid: the already-marginalized are catalogued and labelled and their habits and habitats offered up for gawking consumers.

    Consider the recent beatings and beating-death of mentally ill men in Parkdale when you read this line from the second last paragraph: “An encyclopedic catalogue of their weaknesses and idiosyncrasies could even potentially target them for violence or persecution.” (emphasis mine).

  • http://profiles.google.com/dmitryillustration Dmitry Bondarenko

    I think its really ironic that your blog is stigmatizing an artist (an individual of modest means who has little sway over systemic problems facing this city) for apparently stigmatizing others. Obviously, judging by the debate generated here, a critique of this book and what its author is trying to say is in order. But this – an article that implies guilt in its title, is hardly the place to do it. This is a show of outright hypocrisy, and by your own standards should land you a place in your own villains/pests column.

    Villainizing creative individuals for the shortcomings of their work, even for the sake of political correctness, is not a way to foster discussion of difficult issues. I for one demand a higher standard from a blog that represents itself with the name of the city I call home. I think your publication owes Jason a public apology and a closer examination of his book. Using a blog with a readership like yours to outright stigmatize a struggling artist over a question of taste is an obscene thing to have done.

  • tyrannosaurus_rek

    A closer examination of the article above will reveal it says little about the artist and a lot about the book he produced, which he is ultimately responsible for. Taking his defence and intentions at face value, the criticism of the book is still valid: the already-marginalized are catalogued and labelled and their habits and habitats offered up for gawking consumers.

    Consider the recent beatings and beating-death of mentally ill men in Parkdale when you read this line from the second last paragraph: “An encyclopedic catalogue of their weaknesses and idiosyncrasies could even potentially target them for violence or persecution.” (emphasis mine).

  • Mother Goose

    Yeah Jason with your recent Zanta “book” does Mr.Zancai reap any financail benefits from the proceeds?