I almost died when I saw the cover of The New Yorker.
Professor Gina Barreca's blog sums it up, "The New Yorker cover was about as sophisticated a piece of satire as a penis drawn on a desk. "
Now, The New Yorker has tried to pedantically explain the cover to the public, "We're mocking the mockers." Oh wait, forgive me, I didn't realize the most liberal magazine in the country tried to make an ironic funny. Well, not funny. On so many levels. This requires a numbered list.
1. As much as I don't like Senator Obama's policies, I am of a strange opinion that we should at least attempt to show a modicum of respect for the people in public office, and those that serve in the military. This cover art is a degradation of both. Kind of like when "fine art" photographer Andres Serrano, debuted his seminal Jesus on a Crucifix in a Jar of Pee. Daring? Sure. Meaningless? Check! Offensive? You bet. This is no different.
2. No principled conservative actually thinks Barack Obama is a militant muslim terrorist spouting anti-American propaganda. While I might think his policies are bad for the country - I feel it is from errors of judgement, misplaced values, and overly-confident fiscal policies. I don't think he actually wants to inflict harm upon the people of this country. I just think his policies will take us in a gravely wrong direction. Strong difference of opinion? Yes. Does it warrant mockery and name-calling? No, I can't think of a single conservative I would take seriously if they did.
3. The claim that this cover art will "get people talking" and somehow "dissipate long-held misjudgement" is fantasy. This kind of sensationalism further divides and fosters misrepresentation. Forgive my grade-school mentality but: it's not nice. I get so irritated when people who call themselves artists do something stupid and then defend it because it was an act of supposedly divine inspiration. Art must be measured on some basis of objectivity if we are to put value on it. Stuff like this cover is worthless. I'd expect more from MAD magazine.
Ack. Conservatives Don't Actually Think That!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 Comments:
I totally agree! Especially on point number one. There seems to be a total lack of respect for the position of President these days. Good president and in our case not, there is a certain level of respect that should exist but doesn't.
@s.b. - agreement right back at you!
My family and family-in-law is a melange of political opinions. Heated debates may ensue, but what I appreciate is that no one stoops to low levels to make their points known. This is what I love about political debate, when it can be civil. When hate-filled words are flung, nothing is accomplished and divides are widened.
Well, I'm glad you, and many other conservatives, don't think Obama is a terrorist, but lots of conservatives do. They're in my family. I get the email forwards.
For the most part I'm a Dem, and I most likely will vote for Obama, but I certainly don't see him as some messianic figure as so many Democrats do. I'm long past the point of expecting great things from our presidents, regardless of which side of the aisle they inhabit.
I don't know if it's due to all the media frenzy politicians (both Democrat and Republican) began to get after Clinton became president or what, but I've definitely become more cynical about politics as I have aged. And for all the talk of change we hear each election year, things never change quite as much as candidates would have us believe they will.
Gone are the days of a Lincoln, or a Jack Kennedy-- a president beloved of the masses. What dirt would the media have dug up on them? I don't know if our knowing every little thing about the candidates is a good thing or a bad thing. I suppose at heart it's good, since knowledge is power in many respects. But I'll never be able to have that heartwarming feeling I imagine people used to have when voting for their presidential candidate. I think I'll always look at it as a choice I'd rather not make, not really wanting either candidate.
But I'll vote, nonetheless, because I can, and because it's my duty as an American.
@amy - I don't doubt you know people who send the nasty emails, but I'd argue they have nothing in common with true conservative values. At the very least, I'm not in their camp.
Sure, I bet there would be tons of dirt on past President's. I don't even care to be honest. I don't care where Barack Obama goes to church, I only care about his policies. And I happen to disagree with them on a principled basis.
For example, I still love Marvin Gaye's music even though he was a horrible man with ample evidence to prove it.
The Presidential race shouldn't be about personalities and pedigrees.
I can separate the personal and public, I wish more people would do the same.
Yea i just wrote about this too but my difference in opinion is that as candidates there should be some sense of humor, this was just tasteless though. The fact that people can't make fun of Obama for anything without the DNC saying you are race baiting or Obama throwing a hissy fit is ridiculous
@PoliJunkie - I agree we should be able to poke fun. I mean, John McCain went on SNL with a whole skit about his age. That kind of stuff is fun, but this cover was over the top.
This all reminds me of someone telling a racist joke in hearing of a minority and then asking them, "Can't you take a joke?"
@Anonymous - good point. Happens to me. People find it acceptable to make ethnic jokes about Yugoslavs to my face. I think it's bizarre behaviour.
I sort of disagree (though I'm not sure... lol) because I'm from Canada and we had this huge controversy where a publisher DARED to print cartoons of Mohammed and was sent death threats, sued and hauled into a kangaroo court called the "Human Rights Commission". Since then I've felt strongly that the freedom of speech we need to protect is the most unreasonable speech.
Why?
Because women didn't get to vote by being reasonable. Schools weren't desegregated because black people were reasonable about it.
Many things have been accomplished through unreasonable writing. This cartoon is a form of expression that should be protected.
I agree that people should be able to create their art, but I'm equally free to criticize what I find distasteful, no?
Your example of the artist who is threatened with death is also horrendous. No where in my post did I suggest banning this artist's work, so I don't think your parallel holds water - I'm just airing my opinion that it is inappropriate and holds little value in the debate you rightly frame as worthy of defense.
I believe that there are more effective ways to communicate, and this cartoon did not accomplish it's intent.
Post a Comment