“I got that New Yorker cover, but I’m worried others won’t”
| July 17th, 2008Two great political cartoonists, Ruben Bolling and Jen Sorenson, write about Barry Blitt’s New Yorker cover. Ruben:
This art was explicitly intended to have a specific point. The fact that it didn’t successfully make that point — and, in fact, led many to believe it was making an opposite point — makes it failed satire.
Jen concurs:
But the sad fact is, many Americans are not informed enough to get the irony of the New Yorker cover — and not because they’re stupid; it’s just the state of our democracy.
As Mandolin pointed out in comments, we’ve seen a lot of this critique — people who themselves understood the New Yorker cover, but they just know that somewhere out there, Americans are getting just the opposite idea.
Who are these others? Where are they? Are they even 1% of the people who have seen the cover? After a firestorm of criticism based on the premise that somewhere, out there, are oodles of people misled by the cover image, shouldn’t Jen and Ruben be able to point to some actual, you know, examples? It seems to me that Jen and Ruben (and hundreds of others) have made up a boogyman — All Those Americans Too Uninformed To Understand The New Yorker Cover And Yet Informed Enough To Be Reading The New Yorker (or Political Blogs) — without having any idea of whether or not this person actually exists in significant numbers.
Is it just that lefties like me “get” the cover, but right-wingers will take it as literal? I don’t think so. Robert Hayes, the resident right-winger in our comments, didn’t have a problem understanding the cover’s intentions. Neither did The National Review.
Personally, I don’t like Blitt’s cover — not because it’s “failed satire” (Ruben’s description of a cover that has been correctly interpreted by Ruben, by Jen, by the National Review, and by close to everyone else who has commented) but because it’s not especially funny or interesting. The Millions writes:
The New Yorker, meanwhile, has always been so (justifiably) secure in its status, that neither its contents nor even its ideological leanings require an advertisement on the cover, which historically has been given over instead to a piece of art that exists simply for its own sake.
The political covers come across as jarring in this context. A couple of years ago another political cover caused a bit of controversy. The Bush/Cheney cover was a tired Brokeback Mountain rehash that got people riled up, and, as it turned out, it bumped a cover that was more topical and far more meaningful and in the spirit of the magazine.
Apparently, I may have been in the minority in this view, as the Mark Ulriksen Brokeback cover, along with a political Blitt cover, won awards.
It’s not even the political content of these covers that bugs me - there have occasionally been some good political covers - it’s their heavy-handed unfunniness that paints the magazine’s readers with a very broad brush. I don’t find the Obama cover to be offensive in the least, just easy and dumb.
More comments on the cover: Troubletown, Tom Tomorrow, Cheap Thrills, The Daily Show, and Kevin Moore.
July 17th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Curious to read this after reading
Similarly, how often have we seen comments on this blog about people appearing in blackface. No evidence of racial animus. Just tastelessness. But that hasn’t stopped people from being offended.
Does ironic intent serve a prophylactic against offending people? Cuz I don’t think it’s working.
I had a visceral reaction to the New Yorker cover. No, I was able to figure out the artist’s point, thank you. But that didn’t stop the initial visceral reaction.
People occasionally protest the policies of the US government by burning a flag. Is it hard to figure out the point these people are trying to make? Does the clarity of the protestors’ intentions fact stop people from having a visceral reaction? Are such protests generally regarded as tasteful and productive?
Now, maybe the point of the New Yorker cover is to provoke just such a reaction,. Maybe they regard this as a necessary step to lance a boil that could not be reached with intellectual discourse alone. And maybe it will work. If so, then hallelujah.
But I still feel this illustration in my gut.
This comment was written by nobody.really.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
” All Those Americans Too Uninformed To Understand The New Yorker Cover And Yet Informed Enough To Be Reading The New Yorker (or Political Blogs) ”
Or, all those Americans who pass a newsstand sometime during the week. The New Yorker is on display all over the place, and a lot of the people who have seen/will see that cover were never part of the New Yorker’s target audience.
This comment was written by iiii.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
You’ve also seen me say, a couple of times, that I’m a fan of Bamboozled., Spike Lee’s satiric movie about (among other things) blackface. If you think I’ve been pursuing a simplistic blackface-bad-regardless-of-circumstances-and-meaning approach, then you’re mistaken.
As I said in my previous post on this topic,
I don’t want to go too far defending this cover, because I don’t think it’s really that good, as a cover or as a political cartoon. If you’re offended by it, fine. But I do think the “I get it, but what about others who won’t?” line of attack — which is what this post is about — doesn’t seem very substantiated right now.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
The New Yorker on newstands frequently has an sheet covering most of the front cover image, with a listing of articles and authors in that issue. I don’t know yet if this issue will have that (is it even on newsstands yet?).
Nonetheless, I also feel that the assumption that people who are browsing the news and events sections of newsstands are just too, too stupid and/or ignorant to possibly understand the cover, to be unsupported by evidence so far. Nor am I sure that all magazine covers are bad unless they can be fully understood by non-readers of the magazine who will see it at newsstands.
It seems to me that logic like that is calling for all magazine covers to be as bland and lowest-common-denominator as possible.
I actually have a lot more sympathy for that argument, however, as it regards the racism of this cover image. In other words, that someone might see this cover and think “hey, this magazine I know nothing about is literally saying that the Obamas will burn American Flags in the Oval Office fireplace” doesn’t really bother me. All that says to me is that “there are some idiots out there, and some of them will glance at this cover,” which is something I can live with.
On the other hand — and this goes along with what Nobody.Really was saying — I am bothered by the idea of Black and/or Muslim readers seeing this cover on newsstands, and understand the satiric intent, but nonetheless feeling “othered” by it. Since I consider the cover to be pretty weak tea anyway, I tend to wish that they hadn’t published the cover, because that negative (contributing to othering blacks and Muslims) seems to me to outweigh the cover’s positives.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I wonder how large the demographic of voters is that pass by magazine racks, get misinformed, and then vote based on that are. Not big.
I do think some people will misinterpret the cover but I don’t think it’s anything to worry about.
Barry’s right about there being a cover flap for newstand editions. The New Yorker figured out they need have words on the cover to lure in readers so they developed this. I’d be interested to see the headline for the issue. Maybe it adds the context people claim it needs.
Anyone seen it out there?
This comment was written by Matt Bors.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I think the general public is capable of parsing this cartoon in context. It’s the idea that the Great Unwashed would never run across a copy of the New Yorker (thus making their hypothetical reactions moot) that I take issue with.
This comment was written by iiii.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
What is the distinction between “the general public” and “the great unwashed”?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
This seems to imply that if a work has really excellent merit as art or as political commentary, then that tips the overall balance in its favor despite any offensiveness. Minus 5 for othering but plus 10 for sharp wit, so the overall balance is positive. Are you really saying these two things should be measured on the same scale?
This comment was written by DSimon.Report this comment to the moderators
July 17th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
I agree with iiii’s point. It’s not the readers of that magazine or political blogs that we’re concerned about. Nor is it particularly right-wingers. Those who are already strongly committed to one candidate or the other are unlikely to change their minds. It’s the waverers who might be influenced - those torn between the desire for change and the fear of it. For these people the decision is likely to be made in large part by gut, by instinct.
You already have two people among your guests who have said that their visceral reactions differ from what they are able to figure out.
This comment was written by Daran.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2008 at 6:26 am
I had a visceral reaction to the New Yorker cover. No, I was able to figure out the artist’s point, thank you. But that didn’t stop the initial visceral reaction.
I did too: I liked the Obamas therein potrayed. Particularly Michelle. Frankly I think an Angela Davis type in the White House wouldn’t be the world’s worst thing (not knowing that much about Davis personally, just thinking on the “radical black woman with a gun” stereotype.) She looks ready to go out there, right wrongs, and kick racism and sexism in the butt.The “Muslim type” clothing Barak is wearing looks comfortable and quite nice. Particularly if it’s summer. I’m glad he’s wearing clothing appropriate to hot, muggy Washington rather than bumping the A/C up to 60 degrees F so he can be comfortable in a suit. Seriously, I had a far more positive reaction to it than I would to Obama in a suit. Suits are instinctively scary to me. “Muslim” clothing, not so much. The flag burning in the background? It makes me happy to know he’s not a flag fetishist. It’s clearly not being done out of hate–they’d be focusing much more on it if it were. Ok, so I worry about what the fumes might be doing to the environment, but it’s a minor toxin load, all things considered. The picture of bin Laden I could have done without, but it didn’t jump out at me on first viewing so wasn’t part of my visceral reaction.
Not sure what this all means, apart from that I’m probably a non-mainstream lunatic.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2008 at 6:41 am
And if anyone needs a nail put in the coffin of the meme that New Yorkers are smart enough to “get” the New Yorker cover but, say, midwesterners and southerners aren’t, check out nojojo’s post on ABW, particularly the second article she links to. Yep, we’ve got redneck bigots in NYC too.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2008 at 7:11 am
I totally agree with Dianne that Michelle Obama should start going around with a gun, talking about smashing the state, and Barack should wear exclusively “Muslim” clothing while burning American flags publicly.
See, isn’t it nice to have something to agree on? This is how consensus is built.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Hi, Robert. Yes, I get your point and I also know that my reaction is probably just as obnoxious and ten times as annoying as the “Ah! Muslims! Go run and hide under the bed!” reaction that one is supposed to have to the cartoon. But the discussion was about people’s visceral reactions, not their considered intellectual response to the cartoon.
I quite agree about the gun, though. The character in the picture has implicit access to nukes. The small arms seem redunant.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Sometimes you only need to kill one guy.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 18th, 2008 at 7:39 am
Sometimes you only need to kill one guy.
I thought you rich folks had people to do that sort of thing for you.
This comment was written by Dianne.Report this comment to the moderators
July 19th, 2008 at 9:04 am
I don’t know, Barry. Do you have any statistics on numbers of Blacks or Muslims or Black Muslims feeling “othered” by the cover? Who are these othered Blacks and/or Muslims? Where are they? Are they even 1% of the population that has seen the cover? How many Muslims read the New Yorker, anyway? ;)
I actually think you have a point there (about the othering), but I’m not sure it’s so different from what I’m saying.
Briefly, one more time: the New Yorker cover, as rendered, perpetuates a right-wing meme more than it actually criticizes it. As Ruben Bolling demonstrated in his discussion of the Horsey cartoon with the wheelchair-bound, drooling McCain, if the National Review actually ran that we’d be saying “Hey, thanks for the favor!” and chuckling at their stupidity. Just like G. Gordon Liddy on his radio show, where he said “The New Yorker finally got something right.”
This comment was written by Jen Sorensen.Report this comment to the moderators