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