Behind the News, Campaign Desk

From the Peanuts Gallery

Editorial cartoonists offer their two cents on the instantly infamous New Yorker cover

• Print
• Email
• Comments
• Single page

Here’s what some working editorial cartoonists (and other illustration insiders) think about the brouhaha over this week’s New Yorker cover.

Mike Luckovich

editorial cartoonist at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution since 1989

“I’m an editorial cartoonist and I’m used to edgy, hard-hitting cartoons, and it made me cringe. And for a while I didn’t understand why I cringed.

“I think the illustration misfired. The way it turned out it looked like [the cartoonist] was poking fun at the Obamas, and I don’t think that was the artist’s intention: I think he was trying to poke fun at the outrageous lies about the Obamas.

“I love [Barry Blitt’s] style. He has a beautiful style and a very unique of caricaturing people in a cartoony, intelligent way, but he’s still able to capture their likeness. I think, aesthetically, it’s a beautiful cover. I just think it doesn’t work.

“This is a fairly common thing with editorial cartoons: your symbolism overwhelms the satire, and that is when people react the strongest. As cartoonists, we have to be careful that we’re saying the correct thing. It’s like Dick Cheney shooting his buddy in the face: when the gun goes in the wrong direction, it can really cause some pain.”

Flemming Rose

culture editor of Jyllands-Posten, the Danish newspaper that, in 2005, published a series of cartoons depicting the prophet Mohammed, leading to riots and outcry across the Muslim world

“I would say to David Remnick that I can feel his pain. I read a comment by him that he’s kind of surprised and shocked by this reaction. I’ve been thinking a lot about people’s reactions to cartoons for a few years. Part of the power of images is that they are open to different kind of interpretations—even if you share the same values and operate in the same cultural context. That is something that is an inherent quality of an image. It is never one-dimensional. People will always read it in different ways. That’s what art is about.

“I find funny the reaction by the Obama people that they’re offended by someone who is making fun of those who offend them. There’s a big irony in that.

“Satirical cartoons are usually offensive if they’re good cartoons. In Danish, we have a saying, ‘You laugh at humor and you smile at irony, but there’s nothing to smile about with satire.’

“There’s a very big difference between these cartoons and with the cartoons I published. It has a lot to do with culture differences, but they do not add up to what happened during the cartoon crisis, where you had very different readings of the cartoons. “

Ruben Bolling

author/illustrator of the weekly comic strip “Tom the Dancing Bug”

“I didn’t like when I saw it. I thought it was failed satire, just because he was unable to—in the space that he had, in the wordless panel—to communicate the satire. He just presented the right-wing nightmare, without twisting or exaggerating the premise in any way.

“Good satire has got to take the premise further comedically, and it has to make clear what the target of the satire is. The target of the satire is not how radical Obama is, but, rather, how ridiculous the right wing apprehensions are. Because that was unclear, the satire didn’t work.

“It’s often hard to guess what kinds of misinterpretations people will have on our work. And there’s an element of willful misinterpretation that’s going on here. It’s part of the problem: people are deliberately misinterpreting it because they want to get riled up. It’s something that all editorial cartoons go through.”

Derf

creator of the weekly comic strip “The City”

“I thought it was hilarious. I’ve been working on stuff similar to that, so I’m pissed off that, with one cover, they’ve cornered the market. Now every time you comment on [the issue], it’s going to get related to The New Yorker.

“So many people are misinformed, and you can’t draw to the morons of America. If you don’t know that Obama isn’t a Muslim, we can’t help you.

“I don’t think we have to be clear. It’s not up to us to hold people’s hands. There’s a tendency in political cartooning to really hammer down on people’s heads. I want people to be confused and pissed off.

“At the same time, would it be as successful without the New Yorker logo across the top?”

Jim Morin

editorial cartoonist at the Miami Herald for thirty years

“If you have people who don’t know what the reality is, then it’s very difficult to have them understand satire. You have to be aware of what the facts are. If you’re unaware of the fact that Obama has had these accusations made against him that are untrue, then you’re not going to get it.

“It offended some people because it might inspire some to confuse what is real with what is not. They’re going to think it’s a real portrayal of what Obama and his wife are about, as opposed to being a gross exaggeration.

“It could have been a painting on a canvas on an easel, and it could have a donkey painting it, because this is how Republicans are trying to get people to see Obama.”

Matt Bors

creator of the nationally syndicated comic strip“Idiot Box”

“The outrage is out of proportion. I didn’t find it particularly clever or funny, or clumsy; it was just a typical New Yorker cover that elicited a little smirk.

“Obama is a smart guy: he got the cover. He could’ve made a joke, but instead he decided to go after a magazine that’s publishing long stories about him and his wife.

“It makes it seem that this kind of commentary is off limits, that satirizing the right wing view is offensive.

 1  |  2 

Comments

Tom_Tildrum

Tue 15 Jul 2008 11:52 PM

What a ridiculous set of reactions.

"As cartoonists, we have to be careful that we’re saying the correct thing." Oh please. This newfound delicacy of spirit is laughable. It's clear enough what Luckovich means: "We have to be careful not to hurt the guy we like." That's fine as a partisan political matter, but that's got nothing to do with good cartooning (or good journalism, CJR).

Bolling is right that there's an "element of willful misinterpretation" here, but he should go on to specify where it's coming from -- Obama supporters, "because they want to get riled up."

Bors has a more balanced view, but he goes off the rails with this nutty line: “It makes it seem that this kind of commentary is off limits, that satirizing the right wing view is offensive." Um, Matt, it's not the right wing that's offended. The point of this controversy is that it makes Obama seem off limits.

Fruhlinger's comment, "I think it’s a truism in comedy that if you have to keep explaining the joke, then the joke hasn’t worked," is just irrelevant. No one has had to explain the joke. Everyone got it. The "explaining" is hot air from a lot of people who are struggling to make their dislike sound less crass than just "I don't like it when they poke fun at my guy."

MaxCannon

Thu 17 Jul 2008 02:10 PM

Behold...the power of cartoons.

Makes me tingly all over.

sloov

Mon 21 Jul 2008 12:22 PM

Derf made the most sense.