Re: The New Yorker, July 21, 2008

[worthididnity]

Once again, a firestorm of criticism and corresponding backlash erupts from the simple banality of bad art.

When I say that this is bad art, I mean that in the sense of its being lousy. That is, the artist had a conscious communicative intent for the artwork, but produced a piece that proved ill-suited to the task

Comments

[happymachines]

I don't think the cover is particularly funny, but then I don't think New Yorker covers usually are "funny". They usually go for more of a "here is something that your brain will recognize as a joke but you will not even smile" style of funny, rather than actual funny. But I definitely don't think it's offensive, other than as parody. I mean, it's really obviously supposed to be parody, and it's just sort of too bad for the illustrator that they are doomed to failure. There is no way you can satirize the right-wing smears of Obama and come up with stuff significantly more ridiculous than the stuff they say in all seriousness to make it clear to everyone that it is supposed to be humorous. Their failure was one of conception.

Also, between this and the Bernie Mac thing the Obama campaign definitely wins the stick up the ass humorless overly pc liberal stereotype of the week award.

Also also, just in case you don't know about this, it seems like something you and Sara would enjoy: Reply

[dr_smith]

I'll go with Zach on this one--it's doomed to misinterpretation, and will likely cause trouble, but it IS a work of satire, and I don't think it's accurate to call it racist or islamophobic.

I happen to think it's also a pretty sharp piece, artistically. (Apparently Art Spiegelman agrees.)

[worthididnity]

Other than a very simple "I know what I like", I don't consider myself much of a judge of the craft of visual art, so I don't have any reason to argue with you or with Spiegelman about the style or composition. Which is not to say that I don't think it matters: I do think that the content of a work of art should not exempt it from consideration (positive or negative) of its quality as a work of craft. I just know that I don't have much skill, talent, or knowledge with regard to this field or craft, so I should opt out.

I'd be interested in talking with you more about why you don't think its accurate to call the piece racist or islamophobic. If you'd like to talk more about your conclusion here, or off-line, I'd be glad to have the conversation.

[worthididnity]

That Dr. Horrible thing does, in fact, look like something Sara and I would enjoy. Thanks very much for the recommendation.

I heartily agree with your first paragraph there, about the failure as failure of conception. (The Daily Show punctuated a cable news clip that described the New Yorker as having a history of "controversial" covers, with this recent example.)

As for the "stick up the ass humorless overly pc liberal stereotype of the week award", I found that in both cases the candidate was measured and reasonable in his response (its harder the characterize the response of the campaign as a whole, since the surrogate line can get blurry, and I certainly haven't read everything said by everyone in Obama's orbit). On the Bernie Mac thing in particular, the only statements from Obama that I've read was the mild, playful scolding he gave the guy in an apparent effort to calm an audience who'd been heckling him.