Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7505953.stm

see image

They have been showing the cartoon on the cover of The New Yorker on cable TV. It's probably been viewed more times in two days than the Mona Lisa has been viewed in 500 years.

Every pundit has his take on whether the cover art was 'tacky', 'insulting', 'offensive' or 'funny satire.'

The reason you have to call it satire is because of the title 'New Yorker' across the top. The New Yorker is a vocal supporter of Obama. This illustration is clearly designed to make fun, not of Obama and his wife, but the wild misconceptions that circulate about them. Anybody who can't see that has probably never read The New Yorker. This piece might have been construed in a different way if it had been represented on the cover of an Aryan Brotherhood mag or a rag that prints Ann Coulter drivel. But context matters here.

A satirist always risks insulting those with challenged awareness or humor. It's a dangerous business. Political cartoonists can satirize so exquisitely. The graphic representation of a lampoon or mockery or irony is very powerful. Thomas Nast, one of the fathers of the political cartoon as we know it has a word named after him for his trouble--'nasty.'

I'll bet the guy who drew the cartoon is cackling and rubbing his hands together right now. He certainly accomplished his purpose. This picture has been worth many more than a thousand words.

Do you think it's a funny satire or an insult?

Insult all the way!!!! Let's see the New Yorker try that on McCain!!!! Had it been just showing them dressed normally and bumping hands. Then it wouldn't be so controversial!!!! But they had to stoop low and looked at what happened. I liked the New Yorker but not this time around!!!!
_________________
weed joint

S-a-t-i-r-e. eritas. the Rod is dead on - context - context - context.

i'll go out on a limb here. not being american and privy to the dark and fuzzy underbelly of amerika, i usually get lampooned for commenting, but here goes.

i like the editorial cartoon yet given sensitivities and the fact most folks don't read the New Yorker, I think it should have been kept inside the cover, crisp between the sheets so to speak.

it is a beguiling satirical display. well done.

great write-up Lrod.

~westie

that would have been a discreet compromise, westie
but not nearly as effective marketing
with all the face time on TV, I'll bet the sales of that issue are out the roof
(maybe somebody will actually read the article)

true; i am canadian - and too polite

keep tellin it like it is dude

This sucks.

Or more accurately, the malingering public that prompted it, I suppose. That's pretty depressing.

So anyway, I don't care for the drawing, though if I were reeeaaallly smart, maybe I would. It's just that sometimes I'm such a lightweight when it comes to satire....

Wow.

One of my aspirations has always been to get a poem published in that magazine. As a poet, once you're published in the New Yorker, you've made it. With a publication of poetry in the New Yorker on your list of credits, you can get collections published in book form by reputable poetry publishers. Seriously.

I've always respected the magazine. It's always been one of the classiest magazines on the newsstand.

Up until now.

At first, I thought this cartoon was a complete satire.... meaning I didn't think it was really a front cover of the New Yorker. I thought someone drew the title of the New Yorker into the cartoon as part of the lampooning. Because the New Yorker would never put anything like that on their front cover.

I find it tasteless, not at all funny, and a cheap way to sell their magazine, because people WILL buy it because of the cover. How sad is this? Very!

Welcome to the 21st century. The New Yorker can now be sold at your supermarket checkout counter right next to the sleazy National Enquirer.

.............

The satire actually IS amusing to a degree. But only amusing to those of us smart enough to know that all the bullshit talk about Obama being a Muslim and being associated with terrorists is false. There are actually some people who believe that crap. And this cover will continue to promote the nonsense to the ignorant.

Did McCain hire the cartoonist?

I so agree with you doreen!!!!
_________________
Religion Forum

i looked, i saw, i shook my head. humorous? i didn't think so.

after seeing it 37 times yesterday, it didn't get any better.

new yorker? knee jerker? not impressed. disappointed.

the magazine is a supporter..? please... give me a break.

maybe it would made me laugh if the cartoon re-creates somehow USA paranoia, but it´s too plain, mimetic and timid for that. But I´m not from the USA...!

here also a cartoon made by very well known dibujante Hermeregildo Sabat and portrating our president caused polemic in the media some months ago. It was called by the president as "mafioso". I thought it was a good drawing, maybe the red cross in her mouth was too much , it still molested me somehow, but all felt too much during that days... so...

see:

http://www.edicioni.com/1694-1-caso_sab ... rensa.html

"it still molested me somehow" - what a beautiful, beautiful line!
A-W-E-S-O-M-E !!!!!

Do you think it's a funny satire or an insult?

I will tell you what I think needle man


I think if you can make it in new york you can make it anywhere.
"That is why New York is full of people who can't make it anywhere else." I read that in some trash novel.


That includes the editors of the New Yorker.

suppose, just suppose
that the same cartoon had National Lampoon at the top?
would it look any different to you then?

I think the remarkable thing about this whole tempest in a teapot is that it's gotten an obscene amount of press. It's a cartoon, ferchrissakes. I agree that it's a bit blunt fisted, but it has sparked a lively dialogue about the topic of stereotypes and who believes them and why.

call it what you will.

National Lampoon, Mad Magazine, Playboy, Rolling Stone... i still call 'not funny.'