Is there a line that art is not supposed to cross? When does art become “tasteless” instead of “satirical”?
The editor of The New Yorker has defended the above cover. Both the Obama and McCain campaigns have decried the imagery utilized on the cover.
Does this cover make us give more validity to the stereotypes it represents? Or does its blatant representation make us question the accusations thrown about?
Popularity: 36% [?]
Tagged as: Obama, The New Yorker
Satire people, it’s satire. I always wonder why people get so upset over… CARTOONS.
I agree with Pinkie. I watched a discussion of the cover art on the Lehrer News Hour last night. The one commentator stated that satire ceases to be effective when the “general population” doesn’t get it. He stated that if you have to explain the reasoning behind it then the point has already been lost. I mean I get his statement, but what are we supposed to do? Dumb down satire?! Maybe we can dumb down art, and music, and theater so the general public can understand it too.
Hey sunbow, welcome! The “general population” isn’t smart enough to read the New Yorker. I know
I’m not.
Good points about satire … I’ve been thinking about this cover a whole lot over the past two days. You know, maybe the disconnect with this particular piece may come from the fact that the artist was trying to satirize everyone who has said those things in relation to Senator Obama and his wife. It’s easier to get cartoon satire when the subject/person being satirized is actually in the piece. So maybe that’s what’s weird for people about this cover? I’m not sure.
The NY Times had a good article about how difficult it is to find jokes about Obama that people will laugh about: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/15/us/politics/15humor.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
I don’t think it’s just because his fans are fanatically devoted to him and defensive of him that people have responded so vehemently. I think it’s a factor … but the composition of the piece itself is also off, in some way, and I don’t know.
Maybe it’s also because we can’t find pictures of bin Laden funny, too?
People talk about how Obama is this and his wife is this, but when someone draws their slander and shows it to them, freakout. Not the artist’s fault, but thhe fault of the people saying those things in the first place. And people for Obama think it’s attacking him. I guess it’s quite a smart piece then but too bad it’s so offensive to many. I mean, hello, it’s a cartoon. The wife looks like Ronald McDonald and Obama looks like a bobblehead.
Whoa, she does look like Ronald McDonald - good call, Pinkie!
My trusted voice of reason: Jon Stewart
Ah-ha, good old John Stewart! I love how he points out that the media who are enraged at the cartoon are the very same media who perpetuated the lies portrayed on the cartoon.
Comedy - such a great medium!
I like when he says, “IT’S a F**KING CARTOON!”. My sentiments exactly.
I just watched that show.
I actually met the editor (David Remnick) of New Yorker at a conference earlier this year. He seems like a smart guy and certainly able to understand the implications of people not interpreting the cover of his magazine correctly.
But New Yorker is for really smart people who like satire, innuendo and all that type of stuff. I’m sure they looked at the cover and realized, “well, no one is gonna get this but it’s a great satire, nonetheless.”
That’s what it is and I’m sorry that 99% of our country doesn’t realize that.
In case you haven’t seen this…Vanity Fair (which is owned by the New Yorker) put this parody of the New Yorker cover up on their website. Those cheeky monkeys. (BTW-this image will not actually appear in print. It was only posted on their website).