« Siddhārtha Tapdancing Gautama | Main | Stephan Pastis Tells the Truth »
More on the New Yorker Cover
By Jeff Fecke | July 14, 2008
Ampersand thinks that I’m being overly concerned about what other people think, asking, “do you really think that all liberals should base what we say on whether or not the stupidest people in the world could misunderstand?”
Well…that depends. It depends on where the discussion is taking place, and in what context. In the context of an election in which Barack and Michelle Obama have been the targets of a rash of vile smears, I don’t think it’s helpful for a contextless image detailing every right-wing stereotype to be gracing the cover of a liberal magazine. But I could visualize a cover that I think would work. I don’t think this does, because as Kevin Drum notes, it ultimately pulls its punches:
Maybe it’s because this kind of satire just doesn’t work, no matter how well it’s done. But mostly it’s because a few minutes thought convinced me it was gutless. If artist Barry Blitt had some real cojones, he would have drawn the same cover but shown it as a gigantic word bubble coming out of John McCain’s mouth — implying, you see, that this is how McCain wants the world to view Obama. But he didn’t. Because that would have been unfair. And McCain would have complained about it. And for some reason, the risk that a failed satire would unfairly defame McCain is somehow seen as worse than the risk that a failed satire would unfairly defame Obama.
So: gutless. And whatever else you can say about it, good satire is never gutless.
I think that’s about right. It’s about the context, or lack of same. Oh, I think having it come out of McCain’s mouth would be silly — McCain would never say such a thing, at least directly. That’s what surrogates are for. But I think this could have been done in such a way to target its target more effectively. In the end, it’s a failure because its target is unclear. I know what the intent of this was. But it’s not what’s communicated, and that’s a failure of the piece.
Topics: Barack Obama, Race | 2 Comments »
July 14th, 2008 at 9:02 am
“it’s not what’s communicated”
Are we sure about that? It seems like a lot of the posts I’m reading are people saying “Oh, well, I get it, but what if other people don’t?”
Although, to be honest, it took me a minute to even figure out what the symbolism was supposed to be, message or not. I’m not versed enough in my “what people think Muslims and black power activists look like” symbolism.
For me, I think the issue of guts has less to do with the fact that there’s no obvious marker of satire than the fact that the image is so… delicate. Restrained. The Obamas look serene, really. The colors are subtle. The shapes are round, mannered… why? This seems entirely inappropriate. There should be jaggedness, grimacing, ugliness, stabbing lines, disorder, not these neat little delicately shaded polygons. This is an ugly image. The calm artistic style produces cognitive dissonance that I think feeds into the way people feel that this cartoon is failing to get across its intent. A mismatch between style and content could be used to great effect, if it were being used to mean something, but I really don’t think it is. I think the style of this drawing really just doesn’t serve the piece, which adds to the muddle of its political interpretation.
July 14th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
[...] UPDATE: Jeff replies. [...]