Drawn

barry’s cover is brilliant. françoise should be applauded for selecting it, david should be commended for publishing it. i only wish I had thought of it!

barry’s cover is brilliant. françoise should be applauded for selecting it, david should be commended for publishing it. i only wish I had thought of it!

What hidden agendas or cultural taboos did Blick’s cover speak to? The New Yorker’s goal with the piece, as stated, was to satirize false rumors about the Obamas. The Obama campaign’s problem is that the cover doesn’t successfully pull that off.

Barry Blitt’s concept was a great idea: Let’s take all the vicious lies about the Obamas and turn them into one ridiculous image. It’ll be hilarious and biting.

I think The New Yorker botched it.

But the most important aspect of illustration is clarity. In typical New Yorker fashion, The New Yorker let something get in the way of that. Whether you call it too lofty an expectation of their readership or outright pretentiousness is up to you.

I don’t think it has anything to do with it being Obama, either. If this had been an image of John McCain as a shriveled and teetering old man in a walker, grabbing the ass of a black woman as he pulled cash out of his unsuspecting wife’s pocket, I’d still think it was a bad idea.

What hidden agendas or cultural taboos did Blick’s cover speak to? The New Yorker’s goal with the piece, as stated, was to satirize false rumors about the Obamas. The Obama campaign’s problem is that the cover doesn’t successfully pull that off.

Barry Blitt’s concept was a great idea: Let’s take all the vicious lies about the Obamas and turn them into one ridiculous image. It’ll be hilarious and biting.

I think The New Yorker botched it.

But the most important aspect of illustration is clarity. In typical New Yorker fashion, The New Yorker let something get in the way of that. Whether you call it too lofty an expectation of their readership or outright pretentiousness is up to you.

I don’t think it has anything to do with it being Obama, either. If this had been an image of John McCain as a shriveled and teetering old man in a walker, grabbing the ass of a black woman as he pulled cash out of his unsuspecting wife’s pocket, I’d still think it was a bad idea.

I am deeply distressed that Democrats (my people), of all people, would be upset over the cover of The New Yorker. I guess many Democrats can talk a good game about freedom of speech and Constitutional rights, but in actuality it seems they don’t want freedom as much as they want the freedom not to be offended. If my fellow Democrats want to get upset about something Obama-related, I think Obama’s pandering to the religious right is much more poignant and dangerous an issue than a well-illustrated caricature of the famous family depicted as “Muslim terrorists”.

I am deeply distressed that Democrats (my people), of all people, would be upset over the cover of The New Yorker. I guess many Democrats can talk a good game about freedom of speech and Constitutional rights, but in actuality it seems they don’t want freedom as much as they want the freedom not to be offended. If my fellow Democrats want to get upset about something Obama-related, I think Obama’s pandering to the religious right is much more poignant and dangerous an issue than a well-illustrated caricature of the famous family depicted as “Muslim terrorists”.

I think it’s pretty ignorant to assess that this sketch satire could in any way do something good for Barack Obama. In this case, the motivation seems to be severe exaggeration of a misconception for shock’s sake. Although it may seem important (for whatever reason) to remind the educated American populace of the wide array of ignorant opinions that exist in the world, all it’s doing is bringing something to the surface that the Obama campaign has spent a considerable amount of effort (and money) to dismiss.

If this doesn’t convince you, let me remind you of ABC’s lack of policy-related questions last Winter and their effects on Obama’s campaign trail.

I think it’s pretty ignorant to assess that this sketch satire could in any way do something good for Barack Obama. In this case, the motivation seems to be severe exaggeration of a misconception for shock’s sake. Although it may seem important (for whatever reason) to remind the educated American populace of the wide array of ignorant opinions that exist in the world, all it’s doing is bringing something to the surface that the Obama campaign has spent a considerable amount of effort (and money) to dismiss.

If this doesn’t convince you, let me remind you of ABC’s lack of policy-related questions last Winter and their effects on Obama’s campaign trail.

First, this cartoon doesn’t work because of it’s obscure cultural refs. Mrs. Obama being portrayed not as a Muslim, but as 60′s radical Angela Davis. I’m black and 48, a little older than Barak Obama, so I recall these things. Or at least that’s how I react to this image. Also, you have to consider RACE in this. Dems are famous for disregarding this to a fault. Any Black person in the U.S. knows that EVERYTHING is seen through the filter of Race from his or her perspective. It’s just how it is.
I’m sure that the Obamas are railling against this cartoon because of anticipated voter reaction: How many Blacks in America actually READ the New Yorker; why would they? Now here’s a magazine, outside of their day to day scope, portraying a Black man and his wife as radicals? Of course he’s going to err on the side of safety and condemn the cartoon.

First, this cartoon doesn’t work because of it’s obscure cultural refs. Mrs. Obama being portrayed not as a Muslim, but as 60′s radical Angela Davis. I’m black and 48, a little older than Barak Obama, so I recall these things. Or at least that’s how I react to this image. Also, you have to consider RACE in this. Dems are famous for disregarding this to a fault. Any Black person in the U.S. knows that EVERYTHING is seen through the filter of Race from his or her perspective. It’s just how it is.
I’m sure that the Obamas are railling against this cartoon because of anticipated voter reaction: How many Blacks in America actually READ the New Yorker; why would they? Now here’s a magazine, outside of their day to day scope, portraying a Black man and his wife as radicals? Of course he’s going to err on the side of safety and condemn the cartoon.

One more thing: don’t give the Average American Person to much credit in the “smarts” department. Sad but true. Sure “common sense” stll engages when you have to reach under your lawn-mower to free a stone (you turn it off), but most citizens fall well below the cut-off of grasping sophisticated nuance. And it’s ALL nuance these days. Few of us have the sack and brains to make it outside of the realm of Retail and Middle Management. I hate myself for saying this (yet, my heart feels a strange twang of glee). Americans get dumber every generation; more of us; fewer smart ones. How many Chicago Cubs fans visit this blog I ask you?
Case closed.

One more thing: don’t give the Average American Person to much credit in the “smarts” department. Sad but true. Sure “common sense” stll engages when you have to reach under your lawn-mower to free a stone (you turn it off), but most citizens fall well below the cut-off of grasping sophisticated nuance. And it’s ALL nuance these days. Few of us have the sack and brains to make it outside of the realm of Retail and Middle Management. I hate myself for saying this (yet, my heart feels a strange twang of glee). Americans get dumber every generation; more of us; fewer smart ones. How many Chicago Cubs fans visit this blog I ask you?
Case closed.

“Instead, they are conducting all the juicy discussion over on The Huffington Post.”

You really have to get out more. That’s just the normal stuff of the colonized minds at that site.

Lots and lots of discussion everywhere. Check it out via memeorandum.com

“Instead, they are conducting all the juicy discussion over on The Huffington Post.”

You really have to get out more. That’s just the normal stuff of the colonized minds at that site.

Lots and lots of discussion everywhere. Check it out via memeorandum.com

Righteous: break the Colonies of the Mind. Stop all this Tribal Web stuff. Rise above the idea of “my” Democrats and “those” Republcans. You’re cut of and easy to wipe out. Painting yourself just makes you an easy target.
Dissent is pointless if there’s no one to hear.
Subvert and overthrow the fashioner of chains…I lost my train of thinking.

Righteous: break the Colonies of the Mind. Stop all this Tribal Web stuff. Rise above the idea of “my” Democrats and “those” Republcans. You’re cut of and easy to wipe out. Painting yourself just makes you an easy target.
Dissent is pointless if there’s no one to hear.
Subvert and overthrow the fashioner of chains…I lost my train of thinking.

Satire my hairy ass…

REAL SATIRE would be MOCKING not helping the pathetic Rove-ian slime that spread these rumors in the interest of disinformation because they don’t have the mental capacity nor the party nor the candidate to actually debate the substantive issues that are challenging America.

And F**k yes AMERICANS ARE THAT STUPID! I weep for my country.

Satire my hairy ass…

REAL SATIRE would be MOCKING not helping the pathetic Rove-ian slime that spread these rumors in the interest of disinformation because they don’t have the mental capacity nor the party nor the candidate to actually debate the substantive issues that are challenging America.

And F**k yes AMERICANS ARE THAT STUPID! I weep for my country.

I think it’s interesting that, outside of the US, Americans have a (stereotyping) reputation as being unable to understand irony.

The furore among Democrats and others over this cartoon would seem to fuel that stereotype. I don’t think it’s a very good cartoon, and I don’t think it’s a very clever satire or confrontation of the anti-Obama slurs, but that doesn’t make it offensive or anti-Obama – it just makes it a bad cartoon.

The whole thing reminds me slightly of the British satirist Chris Morris, and his infamous television programme Brass Eye: Paedogeddon, which beautifully satirised the UK media and public’s hysterical and wrongheaded attitude to paedophilia, but which was widely misinterpreted as making fun of the victims of paedophilia themselves.

I guess the US isn’t the only country capable of misunderstanding irony, then.

I think it’s interesting that, outside of the US, Americans have a (stereotyping) reputation as being unable to understand irony.

The furore among Democrats and others over this cartoon would seem to fuel that stereotype. I don’t think it’s a very good cartoon, and I don’t think it’s a very clever satire or confrontation of the anti-Obama slurs, but that doesn’t make it offensive or anti-Obama – it just makes it a bad cartoon.

The whole thing reminds me slightly of the British satirist Chris Morris, and his infamous television programme Brass Eye: Paedogeddon, which beautifully satirised the UK media and public’s hysterical and wrongheaded attitude to paedophilia, but which was widely misinterpreted as making fun of the victims of paedophilia themselves.

I guess the US isn’t the only country capable of misunderstanding irony, then.

Many people confuse sarcasm for irony these days. “My mother is afraid of suirrels; if se saw one she’d run up a tree.” THAT’S ironic.
Isn’t it?

Many people confuse sarcasm for irony these days. “My mother is afraid of suirrels; if se saw one she’d run up a tree.” THAT’S ironic.
Isn’t it?

Barry Blitt is my hero.

Barry Blitt is my hero.

Funny. The “Quote of the Day” I got today read:

Silly things do cease to be silly if they are done by sensible people in an impudent way.
– Jane Austen

At first I thought, “freedom of speech! freedom of the press!” But after thinking it over I think this is a case of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. There are limits to freedom that are guided by responsibility and ethics. This image would go relatively unnoticed if it appeared in an anti-Obama publication, but it seems quite reckless and damaging to appear on the cover of a magazine that has been pro-Obama for so long. Smart people read the New Yorker… reactionary people look at the picture on the cover.

Funny. The “Quote of the Day” I got today read:

Silly things do cease to be silly if they are done by sensible people in an impudent way.
– Jane Austen

At first I thought, “freedom of speech! freedom of the press!” But after thinking it over I think this is a case of yelling “fire” in a crowded theater. There are limits to freedom that are guided by responsibility and ethics. This image would go relatively unnoticed if it appeared in an anti-Obama publication, but it seems quite reckless and damaging to appear on the cover of a magazine that has been pro-Obama for so long. Smart people read the New Yorker… reactionary people look at the picture on the cover.

I love it.
I can’t wait to see the flip side, with the cover of McCain sitting around in adult diapers, holding the red phone upside down at 3am.

I love it.
I can’t wait to see the flip side, with the cover of McCain sitting around in adult diapers, holding the red phone upside down at 3am.

John McCain is too old. For god’s sake, he was shot out of the sky in a state of the art fighter by an Agrarian society. TWO of the carriers his was stationed on burned. BURNED! One of them while he was still aboard.
This guys’ luck is gonna run out in a very public and inconvenient way. Did I mention he’s way old. People his age shouldn’t be allowed to drive anything other than a golf cart. And he wants to drive a country? With THAT haircut?! But this is about the cartoon; it’s plainly a bad note. Awhile back, Jesse Jackson and a gaggle of Black leaders stormed the student gallery at The School of the Art Institute of Chicago (A private school by the way, they were trespassing)…The manhandled a painting off the wall of the recently deceased Mayor Harold Washington. The rallying cry was “Racism”. The painting, by a White student, depicted the late Mayor in his office dressed only in ladies undies and garters. Clearly, poor taste but certainly not racist in any way. Yet this was the only way Jesse and the Gang could justify the act. Jesse is an idiot, too. Effing has-been. He should count himself lucky to eat Obama’s dust. He irks me in no small way.

John McCain is too old. For god’s sake, he was shot out of the sky in a state of the art fighter by an Agrarian society. TWO of the carriers his was stationed on burned. BURNED! One of them while he was still aboard.
This guys’ luck is gonna run out in a very public and inconvenient way. Did I mention he’s way old. People his age shouldn’t be allowed to drive anything other than a golf cart. And he wants to drive a country? With THAT haircut?! But this is about the cartoon; it’s plainly a bad note. Awhile back, Jesse Jackson and a gaggle of Black leaders stormed the student gallery at The School of the Art Institute of Chicago (A private school by the way, they were trespassing)…The manhandled a painting off the wall of the recently deceased Mayor Harold Washington. The rallying cry was “Racism”. The painting, by a White student, depicted the late Mayor in his office dressed only in ladies undies and garters. Clearly, poor taste but certainly not racist in any way. Yet this was the only way Jesse and the Gang could justify the act. Jesse is an idiot, too. Effing has-been. He should count himself lucky to eat Obama’s dust. He irks me in no small way.

Truthfully, my only problem with the cover is Michelle’s awkward stance. Blitt has done better stuff.

Truthfully, my only problem with the cover is Michelle’s awkward stance. Blitt has done better stuff.

It’s an incredibly dumb and lazy image, and it was an incredibly dumb and lazy decision to put this on the cover of The New Yorker. Instead of ironically satirizing right wing, small minded predjices against Obama and the people that have them, the image makes it look as if The New Yorker is taking a swing at Obama and his links with anti-American international terrorism. Links with the same anti-American terrorist oraganisation that was behind 9/11. The image makes it look as if the shocking and revelatory article that conclusively proves these links with international terrorism is lurking within this issue.

It is unintentional fuel for the rightwingers, as it unintentionally fuels hazy and undefined doubts that those of a right wing persuasion might already have about the candidate.

It’s an incredibly dumb and lazy image, and it was an incredibly dumb and lazy decision to put this on the cover of The New Yorker. Instead of ironically satirizing right wing, small minded predjices against Obama and the people that have them, the image makes it look as if The New Yorker is taking a swing at Obama and his links with anti-American international terrorism. Links with the same anti-American terrorist oraganisation that was behind 9/11. The image makes it look as if the shocking and revelatory article that conclusively proves these links with international terrorism is lurking within this issue.

It is unintentional fuel for the rightwingers, as it unintentionally fuels hazy and undefined doubts that those of a right wing persuasion might already have about the candidate.

“Satire” only works when the proposition being offered is so ludicrous as to be laughed at.

On this issue, a significant number of Americans still actually believe or *want* to believe that Obama is indeed actually a Muslim in some fashion.

Meaning that this “satire” is an utter failure, and merely serves to help reinforce that view. A drastically negative portrayal of Obama.

I’m sorry, but Americans, thanks to the incompetence and farcical nature of US media are generally that stupid.

The art itself is great, but the uproar over the image is entirely justified at a time when McCain gets a free pass for declaring “President Putin of Germany”.

It is not a level playing field and it’s sad that a cartoonist can fail at his job so much on a crucial thing like this. It utterly fails to be satire.

“Satire” only works when the proposition being offered is so ludicrous as to be laughed at.

On this issue, a significant number of Americans still actually believe or *want* to believe that Obama is indeed actually a Muslim in some fashion.

Meaning that this “satire” is an utter failure, and merely serves to help reinforce that view. A drastically negative portrayal of Obama.

I’m sorry, but Americans, thanks to the incompetence and farcical nature of US media are generally that stupid.

The art itself is great, but the uproar over the image is entirely justified at a time when McCain gets a free pass for declaring “President Putin of Germany”.

It is not a level playing field and it’s sad that a cartoonist can fail at his job so much on a crucial thing like this. It utterly fails to be satire.

Does anyone have a concrete (or even a fuzzy) number of how many people really do believe that Obama is Muslim?

I always hear “a significant number”, but never hear what that number really is.

I’m kind of torn on the image itself. I can see it as satire, but I am constantly being told that the ‘average American’ is too busy watching NASCAR to ‘get it’. I cannot tell if the argument that Americans in general are too dumb to pick up on it is an expression of the worst fears of intellectuals who are constantly given proof that this is the case or just an assumption taken by some to fortify a smug sense of superiority.

Does anyone have a concrete (or even a fuzzy) number of how many people really do believe that Obama is Muslim?

I always hear “a significant number”, but never hear what that number really is.

I’m kind of torn on the image itself. I can see it as satire, but I am constantly being told that the ‘average American’ is too busy watching NASCAR to ‘get it’. I cannot tell if the argument that Americans in general are too dumb to pick up on it is an expression of the worst fears of intellectuals who are constantly given proof that this is the case or just an assumption taken by some to fortify a smug sense of superiority.

Now that the nation is beginning to move on from this New Yorker cover, can we focus the discussion on the ILLUSTRATION ANGLE of this thing?

I think the description Jaleen gave of the role of illustration here — that it can stir controversy AND refine cultural values — can be true. But I don’t think the New Yorker cover refined anything. And I think its insistence on “sophisticated” ambiguity rather than clear message, as Chris Lowrance pointed out, did make the illustration a failure. It ended up serving, as crayoneater suggests, the purposes of the rumormongers and the sowers of disinformation.

But whether you agree with my assessment of the cartoon or not, I have a challenge for you.

We see more and more explicit propaganda. We seem to live in a time when the rule is “repeat the lie until it is taken for the truth.” It seems to me that the New Yorker cover proves one thing, and that is that irony is a poor weapon to fight such strategies.

So my question is, what strategies besides irony are there for political cartoonists? Couldn’t Drawn! run a little contest to see how many ways cartoonists could come up with to say what the New Yorker cover tried to say? With the rule being the cartoonists must use a more straight-forward strategy?

I know you’ll never achieve perfect clarity but I think we’ve become too dependent on snarky, satirical ATTITUDE. Images themselves take a back seat, as in Blitt’s cartoon where what is actually visible is dependent on something undepicted: knowledge of the magazine’s politics.

Images have often been employed for propaganda precisely because they can be so powerful and direct. Can anyone make a DIRECT nonironic image that indicts the use of propaganda or illustrates the threat to free speech posed by misinformation and rumor mongering?

Now that the nation is beginning to move on from this New Yorker cover, can we focus the discussion on the ILLUSTRATION ANGLE of this thing?

I think the description Jaleen gave of the role of illustration here — that it can stir controversy AND refine cultural values — can be true. But I don’t think the New Yorker cover refined anything. And I think its insistence on “sophisticated” ambiguity rather than clear message, as Chris Lowrance pointed out, did make the illustration a failure. It ended up serving, as crayoneater suggests, the purposes of the rumormongers and the sowers of disinformation.

But whether you agree with my assessment of the cartoon or not, I have a challenge for you.

We see more and more explicit propaganda. We seem to live in a time when the rule is “repeat the lie until it is taken for the truth.” It seems to me that the New Yorker cover proves one thing, and that is that irony is a poor weapon to fight such strategies.

So my question is, what strategies besides irony are there for political cartoonists? Couldn’t Drawn! run a little contest to see how many ways cartoonists could come up with to say what the New Yorker cover tried to say? With the rule being the cartoonists must use a more straight-forward strategy?

I know you’ll never achieve perfect clarity but I think we’ve become too dependent on snarky, satirical ATTITUDE. Images themselves take a back seat, as in Blitt’s cartoon where what is actually visible is dependent on something undepicted: knowledge of the magazine’s politics.

Images have often been employed for propaganda precisely because they can be so powerful and direct. Can anyone make a DIRECT nonironic image that indicts the use of propaganda or illustrates the threat to free speech posed by misinformation and rumor mongering?

I think too many people assume that the New Yorker’s agenda is to support Obama’s campaign. I think a better agenda would be to encourage people to think for themselves. And I think this cover does a great job of that.

I think too many people assume that the New Yorker’s agenda is to support Obama’s campaign. I think a better agenda would be to encourage people to think for themselves. And I think this cover does a great job of that.

“I think the description Jaleen gave of the role of illustration here — that it can stir controversy AND refine cultural values — can be true. But I don’t think the New Yorker cover refined anything.”

Just a point of clarification to eymmanuel’s great response. What I was getting at is that it is *the discussion* that results from contentious images helps refine cultural values, not the image itself. Images are just images – it takes context before they can “mean” anything, and that contextualization happens in the course of debate and interpretation. As it is here. For instance, my view of the matter and my values are shifting after having read other points of view on the politics and on the role of our professions as imagemakers. I’m feeling simultaneously humbled and wiser.

“I think the description Jaleen gave of the role of illustration here — that it can stir controversy AND refine cultural values — can be true. But I don’t think the New Yorker cover refined anything.”

Just a point of clarification to eymmanuel’s great response. What I was getting at is that it is *the discussion* that results from contentious images helps refine cultural values, not the image itself. Images are just images – it takes context before they can “mean” anything, and that contextualization happens in the course of debate and interpretation. As it is here. For instance, my view of the matter and my values are shifting after having read other points of view on the politics and on the role of our professions as imagemakers. I’m feeling simultaneously humbled and wiser.

Does anyone know anything about Blitt himself? There isn’t much biographical info on the web about him. I’ve liked his past covers for the NYer.

Does anyone know anything about Blitt himself? There isn’t much biographical info on the web about him. I’ve liked his past covers for the NYer.

I blame the editor for not asking the illustrator to redraw what could have been a classic piece of political satire.

It’s simple: “Pull back, put the cover image inside a thought balloon coming out of the head of a likely suspect who also receives similar treatment.”

Can I have the job now!?

New Joker is more like it.

I blame the editor for not asking the illustrator to redraw what could have been a classic piece of political satire.

It’s simple: “Pull back, put the cover image inside a thought balloon coming out of the head of a likely suspect who also receives similar treatment.”

Can I have the job now!?

New Joker is more like it.

@Michael J Patrick:
> Does anyone have a concrete (or even a fuzzy) number of how
> many people really do believe that Obama is Muslim?
>
> I always hear “a significant number”, but never hear what
> that number really is.

About 12%.

@Michael J Patrick:
> Does anyone have a concrete (or even a fuzzy) number of how
> many people really do believe that Obama is Muslim?
>
> I always hear “a significant number”, but never hear what
> that number really is.

About 12%.

I’m not American, so I don’t know what want or which corner is the Now Yorker.
If you don’t know that’s a caricature of what people say about Obama, it look like more like what the now yorker thing. So It’s perhaps a mistake on the caver.

I’m not American, so I don’t know what want or which corner is the Now Yorker.
If you don’t know that’s a caricature of what people say about Obama, it look like more like what the now yorker thing. So It’s perhaps a mistake on the cover.

I’m not American, so I don’t know what want or which corner is the Now Yorker.
If you don’t know that’s a caricature of what people say about Obama, it look like more like what the now yorker thing. So It’s perhaps a mistake on the caver.

I’m not American, so I don’t know what want or which corner is the Now Yorker.
If you don’t know that’s a caricature of what people say about Obama, it look like more like what the now yorker thing. So It’s perhaps a mistake on the cover.