It's not 'satire' if it can't tell you it's 'satire'.

[The Doctor.]

Yes, yes... a picture is worth a thousand words... but a proper picture never actually uses words at all, and therein lies a small, or potentially large problem. What can a picture tell us? Well heck, it would take all day to describe all the feelings, impressions, attitudes, social commentary, philosophy, humor, instruction, and everything that can be conveyed with mere imagery. People have written dissertations, tomes, even volumes of books on the language of imagery and art. As it turns out, the vast amount of information that a picture can communicate to the viewer is nearly beyond description... certainly many pictures are worth many more words than a mere thousand.

Now here's the problem with those words; they're almost entirely open to interpretation. The more complex, nuanced, and meaningful an image is, the more open to interpretation it is. A picture with a specific purpose or meaning, such as an image of a skirted stick-figure on a bathroom door, is, by necessity, very simple. When the message is simple and clear, the image must also be simple and clear. Unfortunately, in a static image, the more complex or encompassing the message, the more unlikely any simple cue, instruction, or self-commentary is to rise to the viewer's recognition. A picture cannot cue it's viewers with self-commentary because the image is static, and therefore, without a sequence of images, the singular image will project only it's most predominant impressions. Any attempts to insert the message; "This is satire" layered with "This is why this is satire" will be lost among the more potent message, and become diluted into meaninglessness, or worse, the entire meaning of the piece will be lost in the attempt. 'Direct' messages depend on simplicity in the image. While simple in concept, the conveyance of 'satire' is actually quite complex.

Oh, certainly this is not absolutely the case. In the infinite realm of imagination, it's possible to take an image, such as the one in the New Yorker, and indicate it is 'satire' through clever juxtaposition. Unfortunately, this often means the more clever the tact, the smaller the number of viewers capable of recognizing the message. I, personally, might have put the entire image of Barack and Michelle in the Oval office in a 'Thought Bubble' issuing from a couple sleeping in bed under an American flag sheet with a picture of Bush on the wall... maybe that would help make the message, "this is a silly fear", more clear... but even then, the image might only become more confusing.

Compare this to how actual satire is done. When Stephen Colbert uses satire, when any comedian does in fact, they use sometimes elaborate, sometimes simple cues to inform the audience that what they are seeing is a form of hyperbole. With Colbert, his established contrarian persona is all the context his audience needs to know that his depictions are a commentary on some of the more ridiculous attitudes of the right wing. Say I walk up and down the street handing out a picture of Obama dressed as a terrorist to strangers. They don't know me, they don't know my intention, they will likely assume that I'm trying to tell them that Obama is a terrorist. Stephen Colbert puts the same picture up on the screen. Since we know that he's a caricature of RW attitudes, we have all the context we need to know that his message regarding the picture is quite the opposite of the actual depiction.

Since images are static, it is immensely difficult to portray satire in a single, static image without appropriate context. Certainly it can be done, but in the case of the New Yorker, they failed to develop the message.

When a picture doesn't tell you it's satire, it's not 'satire'.

[rug]

1. The print media doesn't use smileys.

:sarcasm:

[The Doctor.]

2. Lol! Maybe they should! nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. It's satire.

Only those not paying attention to the right's attempts to paint a moderate Democrat as a raving revolutionary would miss it.

[The Doctor.]

9. Ah... so you're saying that outside context is required.

I think I covered that.

The point of satire is to convey a message that the cover does not. It does not say "This is an unfounded and silly fear", especially to those that are looking to see their fears validated. The image does exactly that unless the viewer has the requisite grasp of the context.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. Are you saying that everyone has to "get it" for it to be satire?

I disagree.

[The Doctor.]

93. No, what I'm saying, that you clearly reiterated, is that it does not convey

it's own inherent "satire".

I guess I'll just be pasting this;

The point isn't that these are not outrageous images or notions, they most certainly are. The crux of the issue is that this pointed collection of images quite obviously state that; "Obama is a terrorist" without any cues to the contrary. The mere fact that they are 'over the top' does not constitute such a cue or directly communicate 'satire' to the viewer. In order to perceive the 'satire', the viewer has to have extraneous knowledge about both politics and TNY.

As a stand-alone piece, it does not convey that it's "just kidding about that whole terrorist thing", nor does it say, "These are just silly fears that we're lampooning now."

I get your point; "If you don't get that it's satire, then you aren't paying attention to the political climate and have an understanding of TNY.

THAT's MY point... as a piece of work, it is not by itself 'satire'.

Unless you can tell me what, in the image, tells us it's "just kidding" or "portraying silly fears".

[Hugabear]

138. Silly, none of those pictures are satire

So the OP doesn't come back and claim that I'm misquoting him or twisting what he said, I'll just quote him.

When a picture doesn't tell you it's satire, it's not 'satire'.

[The Doctor.]

146. Wow,

I like ya', but yer dumb as a bag of rocks.

Umm... like I said before and I'll say again (just in a different way on the off-chance it'll finally sink in); "Tell you" does not mean 'with written words'. It means an 'implicit indication'. A clue.

Some of the above pictures contain adequate cues and simple messages. Nothing in TNY piece does.

[Hugabear]

170. Oh really

You can look at those cartoons in the post given and pick out clues, and understand what is going on? Without any of that 'extraneous knowledge' stuff?

I will freely admit that I don't necessarily understand what the satire in those cartoons posted is poking fun at. But that does not make it any less satire. I'm sure that given the audience those cartoons were aimed at, that they got their message across.

[Iris]

202. yeah, cause so many New Yorker readers believe Obama is a Muslim terrorist.

:crazy:

[The Doctor.]

212. That was the point. You apparently didn't read the OP either.

[Iris]

213. sorry. I'm functioning on sleep deficit.

And once again bothered and dismayed by the lack of sophisticated thinking... or any thinking... I see going on here at DU lately.
:boring:

[jobycom]

4. The first time I heard Rush Limbaugh, I thought it was satire.

I thought it was a comedian mocking Rush Limbaugh, who I had heard of but never actually heard. I listed probably 15 minutes, laughing my ass off, before I realized it really was him, and his satire was unintended.

The New Yorker was clear satire. Anyone who fails to understand it is to blame for that. I refuse to accept that the world should be geared towards the lowest common denominator.

[The Doctor.]

19. It's not whether it's 'geared' to the LCD or not, it's a stand-alone message

depicting the Obamas as terrorists without any context beyond that which only a few will really get.

Maybe I'll go out today and ask a sample of people; "What does this image tell you?"

I'll lay money that most of the responses, even by fairly educated people, will be, "He's a terrorist", not "It's joking that there are lots of people afraid that he's a terrorist".

[jobycom]

28. People who miss that it's satire are to blame for missing it.

I can't see how anyone would view it otherwise. Ask anyone you want of who you want, that will only say something about them, not about the cartoon.

[The Doctor.]

36. I'm not disagreeing with you, but this, as a stand-alone piece, is more easily perceived as

a presentation of fears rather than a critique on their validity.

Yes, there are those handful of people without the requisite sophistication to 'get it'... how many might that be?

Say... 80% of Americans?


The point was context, all you've done is reinforce that point.

[jobycom]

45. Back to my point. The New Yorker's target readership

is educated and sophisticated enough to understand the satire. Are you saying the magazine should dumb down its cover art so some people won't get the wrong idea? I say it shouldn't.

And you underestimate people, anyway. Maybe at first glance many wouldn't know it was satire, but by now they do. That makes them think about it anew. Isn't that the point of art?

[The Doctor.]

94. Oh not at all.

What I'm saying is, the point isn't that these are not outrageous images or notions, they most certainly are. The crux of the issue is that this pointed collection of images quite obviously state that; "Obama is a terrorist" without any cues to the contrary. The mere fact that they are 'over the top' does not constitute such a cue or directly communicate 'satire' to the viewer. In order to perceive the 'satire', the viewer has to have extraneous knowledge about both politics and TNY.

As a stand-alone piece, it does not convey that it's "just kidding about that whole terrorist thing", nor does it say, "These are just silly fears that we're lampooning now."

I get your point; "If you don't get that it's satire, then you aren't paying attention to the political climate and have an understanding of TNY.

THAT's MY point... as a piece of work, it is not by itself 'satire'.

[Iris]

203. bingo. n/t

[aikoaiko]

5. Yeah, A Modest Proposal should have started, "This is satire".

The cartoon on the cover of the New Yorker is over the top ridiculous. That's what tells you it is satire.

[The Doctor.]

10. Really? I thought "A Modest Proposal" was a pamphlet... you know... with words.

Simply being over the top does not satire make. Images of the holocaust were 'over the top', cartoons of black people depicted as monkeys are 'over the top'... are those satire?

[aikoaiko]

31. Swift didn't need to declare his work satire becaue it was outrageous.

or as I said, over the top.

Yes, not all things outrageous are satirical, but it is a reasonable technique for demonstrating satire.

Your premise is that the NYer cover failed because it did not give a hint that it was satire, but apparently people like me think they succeeded with the over the top depiction.

[The Doctor.]

99. And, as I said about the WRITTEN word, it was able to demonstrate, through SEQUENCE

and progression, that it was satire.

One more time from the OP; images are static, words require linear resolution.

[aikoaiko]

140. "words require linear resolution"?

Written satire and pictorial satire can be just are nuanced or blunt. You try to compare NYer cover to the Colbert report, but really thats like comparing abstract art to representative art. One is more subtle than the other, and neither one is required to "tell you" its art in order for it to be art. Do you really think all satire must be as blunt and ham handed as Colbert in order for it to qualify as satire?

Your premise is that is not satire when the image doesn't tell you its satire. The same is true of any satire regardless of media. Swifts work never says it's satire -- he uses outrageous unreasonableness, just as this image does. His linear progression is not the source of the satire.

After viewing the cover for a few seconds I recognized it as satire. So according to your definition, then it is satire -- at least to me.

[The Doctor.]

152. Again, we're talking about extraneous knowledge.

What you call 'ham handed' by Colbert is the set-up and delivery of comedy. It has to have sequence in order to provide the cues to the audience. This forms the basis of the 'extra' knowledge the audience needs to interpret his intentions.

For an image to communicate such intention it must have one of two things; implicit cues, which TNY piece does not, or an outside understanding of the context by the viewer.

In the case of TNY image, not everone has that understanding, nor can everyone be expected to be in that 'special' class of people that understands things the way that you do.

My point, which clearly stands, is that the image contains no cues that it is satire. To put this to the test, if you possess the imagination, picture the image as having been first introduced on a racist or right-wing site and ask yourself honestly what your reaction would be.

If you're honest with yourself, you'd say they were fearmonging racists, BUT because it's from the New Yorker, your perspective is different.

That's the point, the image is not by itself satire, and taken out of the context of the publishing entity, no one here would approve. This cannot be said for all the other images The New Yorker has published. Many of those are obviously humor regardless of the publisher.

I'm really surprised people can't wrap their head around that.

[BreweryYardRat]

68. There's a big difference between this and "A Modest Proposal."

People then didn't practice cannibalism, and would have thus been able to figure out the satire.

People now are getting this "Obama is a terrorist" crap pushed at them from all directions. They won't necessarily realize it's satire, because it's saturating the national consciousness. They'll just assume it's more of the same.

[The Doctor.]

98. Wow... that's what my wife said too.

She said that the media is pushing the 'terrorist' thing on people, and this only plays into it.

[sakura]

222. Exactly. Many Americans won't see this as hyperbole.

This type of garbage has been circulating in chain emails for months now. And it's presented as fact. The New Yorker drawing only reinforces these lies.

[undeterred]

6. It would have been satire if it were in the magazine facing an article

on the subject, but on the cover it is out of context.

[The Doctor.]

14. Precisely. I also can't help but notice almost all the responses here have missed the point;

"Context".

Saying; "If you knew better, you'd know it's satire" is only reinforcing my point.

[XOKCowboy]

29. Thank you so much...

for so artfully saying what I tried to say in my original thread. Millions of people are going to see that image who will never read the article and all it will do is reinforce the lies and rumors they've heard and the email bombs they've received about Barack.

Also, most people who see the cover on newsstands (yes they do sell the New Yorker in places other than New York) have no idea of the history or the ideology of the New Yorker and don't really give a damn.

[wuushew]

37. MSNBC probably gets a few million hits a day at least

[EFerrari]

33. The form is the context. n/t

[Hugabear]

90. Thank you for singlehandedly re-writing the rules for satire.

We'll make sure that we hand out this new rule to all authors, writers, and journalists throughout the world. All satire must be accompanied by an article on the subject. Standalone satirical cartoons are no longer permitted.

[The Doctor.]

100. What about the image conveys that it is 'satire'?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. if you actually read the new yorker ever, you would know its satire

its like if you dont know about stephen colbert and then see his show, and then scream bloody murder.

[Mojambo]

11. There were quite a few people here who did just that in the early days of the Colbert Report. n/t

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. so is that colberts fault or their own? are journalists responsible for our stupidity?

[The Doctor.]

15. The image provides no context.

[EFerrari]

18. Of course it does. It puts the front running couple in the Oval Office

depicted in garb that should make somene ask, why are they dressed that way? And anyone living in this country has heard one or more of the smears.

What more context do you need? Arrows? Bubbles?

:shrug:

[The Doctor.]

22. So you're not afraid of putting terrorists in the Oval Office?

That's a fear that many people would love to cultivate. The picture presents that fear directly. Nothing in the picture indicates that it's satire.

That's the point. You only know it's a 'joke' if you know the New Yorker or are very educated on the current state of politics.

[EFerrari]

24. The fact that it's a CARTOON should be a big clue. n/t

[EFerrari]

30. Cartoon: definition

cartoon

NOUN:

1.
1. A drawing depicting a humorous situation, often accompanied by a caption.
2. A drawing representing current public figures or issues symbolically and often satirically: a political cartoon.
2. A preliminary sketch similar in size to the work, such as a fresco, that is to be copied from it.
3. An animated cartoon.
4. A comic strip.
5. A ridiculously oversimplified or stereotypical representation: criticized the actor's portrayal of Jefferson as a historically inaccurate cartoon.

[The Doctor.]

44. Yes, but the image contains none of it's own context. It's a depiction of the Obamas as

terrorists.

You and I know that it's a play on irrational fears, but there's nothing in the image to give it that context. Merely saying that "It's ridiculous, therefore it's satire" is not sufficient.

[EFerrari]

48. Have you looked at the image?

And there are plenty of clues in the image that provide context besides the form itself.

People who don't see that have to willfully not see it.

[The Doctor.]

50. What are the cues? Seriously, let's go over them and I'll show you what I mean.

One at a time or all at once if you'd like.

[EFerrari]

52. I tried to post the graphic to do just that but I can't get it to load.

First, it's in the form it's in.

Second, the Obamas are drawn figures, not photographed.

Third, they are in the Oval Office before they've been elected.

Fourth, they're wearing clothes that would get them both sent to Gitmo.

Fifth, an American flag is burning in the fire place.

Sixth, there's a picture of Bin Laden on the wall.

Whoever takes this for one of the gospels is an idiot whose vote Obama would never get in the first place.

And if Obama fights this image, he's making a huge mistake. This was his opportunity to laugh this crap off.

/typos

[The Doctor.]

55. I'll have to get back, we're running out the door right now.

I'm serious... I think you'll see what I mean.

I'll be back, thanks for being patient. ;)

[EFerrari]

57. I'm on a temp machine that keeps loading the CREDO ad.

Ack!

[A HERETIC I AM]

85. For what it's worth, I couldn't agree with you more.

And if Obama fights this image, he's making a huge mistake. This was his opportunity to laugh this crap off.

I absolutely, wholeheartedly agree.

Well said

[The Doctor.]

91. Here we go;

"First, it's in the form it's in."

-Ok, you'll have to be more specific. What, precisely, is it about the 'form' that conveys 'satire'?

"Second, the Obamas are drawn figures, not photographed."

That means nothing, many very offensive pictures have been 'drawn'.

"Third, they are in the Oval Office before they've been elected.

Well, that's an obvious projection, the main theme of the piece; "What will it be like if Obama is in the White House." From that theme, we see the trappings of dread suggesting that he'll burn the flag and embrace Islam and bin Laden.

"Fourth, they're wearing clothes that would get them both sent to Gitmo.

Well, that's quite a stretch considering that people openly wear those types of outfits (sans firearms) all the time without getting hauled off to internment camps. Lucky us I guess. Meanwhile, I do believe that would be the point of their 'revealing their true nature' upon attaining office.

"Fifth, an American flag is burning in the fire place."

Yeah, they hate America... that would be the message.

"Sixth, there's a picture of Bin Laden on the wall."

No need to hammer the theme to death, but yeah, it says he loves bin Laden.

Get it?

You see, the point isn't that these are not outrageous images or notions, they most certainly are. The crux of the issue is that this pointed collection of images quite obviously state that "Obama is a terrorist" without any cues to the contrary. The mere fact that they are 'over the top' does not constitute such a cue or directly communicate 'satire' to the viewer. In order to perceive the 'satire', the viewer has to have extraneous knowledge about both politics and TNY.

As a stand-alone piece, it does not convey that it's "just kidding about that whole terrorist thing", nor does it say, "These are just silly fears that we're lampooning now."

I get your point; "If you don't get that it's satire, then you aren't paying attention to the political climate and have an understanding of TNY.

THAT's MY point... as a piece of work, it is not by itself 'satire'.


I do not believe for a moment that you cannot understand that. Can't you?

[Gormy Cuss]

143. The work by itself is satire, exactly as sfexpat outlined.

The form it's in - cover art for a notably liberal publication known for provocative cartoons.

They're drawn: reinforces that it's not reality.

They're in the Oval Office before the election -- obviously a projection of what some envision it will be like with 'THOSE PEOPLE' in the up-until-now very White house.

The clothes they're wearing -- while it's hyperbole to say those outfits would get them sent to Gitmo, the Michelle caricature represents the scary black militant archetype that was prevalent in the 1960s and 1970s and the Barack caricature is outfitted in the manner of the new scary archetype, the "Islamist."

The burning flag and Osama portrait are spoofing the hand-wringing among the people who believe that the country will go to hell in a hand basket because the Obamas are too different from what some perceive as suitably presidential.


Is it successful as satire? I would wager that it is successful with its target audience, which is readers of The New Yorker. Is it being used out of context with a literal interpretation? Absolutely -- that's clear from the reaction of DUers alone, never mind the rest of the country.
It's also another reminder of the deep, unhealed wounds of racism.

No matter. The Obama camp has decided that condemning the image as if it were literally a slam is more advantageous than embracing the satire and using it to deflate the RW rumors that have been dogging the campaign for months. That's their call, and I trust that they made an informed choice.

[EFerrari]

150. It's interesting that "Michelle" can be figured as a Black Militant directly

where the racist slam against "Obama" is indirect, black militant via Islam -- and I mean in the imagination of the right wing nuttery as figured in the graphic.

[Gormy Cuss]

151. I think the whole "Obama is an Islamist" rumor was a clever way to put him down

without mentioning his race which is the real fear factor. It's just more socially acceptable these days to shun Muslims.

[EFerrari]

160. In Obama's case, "Muslim" is obviously code.

And maybe it is in the wider application, too -- not for "black" but useful for other useful right wing wedges.

[The Doctor.]

161. You've reiterated MY point;

"A notably liberal publication" is extraneous knowledge. :eye: That's what I've been saying. You just proved my point that it's not stand-alone satire because you have to KNOW that it's a 'liberal publication'.

"Reinforces that it's not reality"? Are you serious? So anything drawn cannot depict 'reality', gotcha. Unfortunately, that's just plain wrong.

"They're in the Oval Office before the election -- obviously a projection of what some envision it will be like with 'THOSE PEOPLE' in the up-until-now very White house." - Ummm, yeah, that's the portrayal of the fear... as I said, with no indication that it's an irrational fear.

"The burning flag and Osama portrait are spoofing the hand-wringing among the people who believe that the country will go to hell in a hand basket because the Obamas are too different from what some perceive as suitably presidential." - Of course it is to US because we know how ridiculous that is. But the burning of the flag is not portrayed as an irrational fear in the image... it's just the flag in a fireplace... no context other than 'they're burning the flag'.


Again, if this image were originally published on a RW site, all of DU would be up in arms about it's racist/xenophobic/fearmongering message. You need the extraneous context of it having been published in a 'liberal' magazine to see it as satire.

Why is that over so many people's heads?

[Gormy Cuss]

166. The graphic includes "The New Yorker." That's context.

Many people who have never read the magazine are familiar with its long history of over the top political cartoons. That's context. Sure, not everyone will be familiar with that context. Not everyone knows that FOX news is a RW noise machine either.

You continue to parse each element separately without regard to its role in the whole graphic. The sum of the parts is the context.

If the graphic had been published with The Weekly Standard under the banner rather than TNY, that's context and one could assume that it was meant as a slam, but it would just as laughable a portrayal of the candidate. I'd like to know why that's over the heads of some people.

[The Doctor.]

172. That certainly helps... IF you read and understand The New Yorker.

Perhaps if it were captioned, "The politics of Fear" or something, that would nail it down. but as it stands, there's nothing in the image that identifies it as 'satire'.

Even 'the sum of it's parts' gives no implicit indication that it's satire, you still have to know why all that over the top imagery is ludicrous.

[EFerrari]

185. That's willful misreading. There's nothing in the image that indicates

it's a straight portrayal of the Obamas which is what you have to believe in order to ignore all the signals that it is satire -- beginning with the form and the venue.

There is nothing in the image that identifies it as a neutral depiction. Nothing.

[The Doctor.]

211. Ummm... yeah, that's pretty much what I said...

There's nothing in the image that identifies it as 'neutral'. Everything in the image says, "The Obamas are dangerous", and nothing in the image says otherwise.

The venue is irrelevant to the point I've consistently made which is that information outside of the image is necessary to grasp it... duh.

By talking about the "form", you're saying that 'all illustrations do not convey a direct message, or should not be taken seriously'.

Just because it's a silly drawing doesn't mean it can't be intended to offend.

[EFerrari]

217. First, you need to go look up "cartoon". I posted the definition

you apparently didn't read it.

And no, the venue is not irrevelant. This image on a toilet would be different than on the front page of the New York Times. The venue is as much a part of the composition as anything else. We're talking about a frame.

And it's your judgment that the drawing is silly. In my opinion, it's not silly at all. It's a dead on depiction of the poison coursing through this country right now. The sooner we let it out into the open, the better we can deal with it.

[EFerrari]

148. What I finally think is the DU gets very protective of their Democrats.

And, that's probably right. :)

[LanternWaste]

147. The same standard of cues which allows us to recognize...

The same standard of cues which allows us to recognize this as satire...



Those cues being the creators playing on glaringly obvious and dramatically ficticious stereotypes held by the lowest common denominators.

[SteelPenguin]

27. I think you'd have to be a grade A fool to think it's serious

I"m talking the 10% of Americans who already think he's in collusion with Al Qaeda simply because his middle name is Hussein and Rush told them so. Even most of them would see it and laugh and realize that it's Satire, even if they agree with it.

Most people, whether they're paying attnetion to the process or not, would be able to tell by looking at it that they're not serious and seeing it won't sway an undecided voter anyway, and if it did they weren't going to vote for him anyway.

A random person on the street with no knowlege of the New Yorker isn't going to glance at the cover and think it's being serious. You talk about Colbert's queues. There are plenty of visual cues in the picture that it's not serious.

[The Doctor.]

39. "If it's ridiculous, then it must be satire" isn't reliable... otherwise this;

would be 'satire' too.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

71. its a bloody cartoon in a left wing magazine

[Mojambo]

25. Oh, their own definitely.

But it was amusing to see among the DU population, who I would have assumed to be able to pick up the satire a little better.

[The Doctor.]

47. It really is as if half the respondents, yourself included, didn't ACTUALLY read the OP.

This answers your question whether you realize it or not;

"A picture cannot cue it's viewers with self-commentary because the image is static, and therefore, without a sequence of images, the singular image will project only it's most predominant impressions. Any attempts to insert the message; "This is satire" layered with "This is why this is satire" will be lost among the more potent message, and become diluted into meaninglessness, or worse, the entire meaning of the piece will be lost in the attempt. 'Direct' messages depend on simplicity in the image. While simple in concept, the conveyance of 'satire' is actually quite complex."

[Hugabear]

92. This is ridiculous

Are you trying to say that unless it is accompanied by commentary, that a picture or cartoon cannot be considered satire on its own?

[The Doctor.]

96. There's nothing 'on it's own' that conveys satire... THAT's the point.

The point isn't that these are not outrageous images or notions, they most certainly are. The crux of the issue is that this pointed collection of images quite obviously state that; "Obama is a terrorist" without any cues to the contrary. The mere fact that they are 'over the top' does not constitute such a cue or directly communicate 'satire' to the viewer. In order to perceive the 'satire', the viewer has to have extraneous knowledge about both politics and TNY.

As a stand-alone piece, it does not convey that it's "just kidding about that whole terrorist thing", nor does it say, "These are just silly fears that we're lampooning now."

I get your point; "If you don't get that it's satire, then you aren't paying attention to the political climate and have an understanding of TNY.

THAT's MY point... as a piece of work, it is not by itself 'satire'.

Unless you can tell me what, in the image, tells us it's "just kidding" or "portraying silly fears".

[Hugabear]

103. How about the fact that he's not a fucking terrorist?

I think most Americans can recognize the fact that Obama is not a fucking terrorist.

Jimminy Cricket, does everything have to be spelled out in black in white for you? Do you honestly have to be spoon-fed this stuff?

Oh, by the way - you might want to refrain from ever reading The Onion. I hear it's chock-full of satirical images that someone might take literally.

[The Doctor.]

105. Your assumptions are proving you can't deal with the concepts at hand.

The meme that Obama 'might be' a terrorist is rather prolific. Just because a good number of people know better doesn't mean that the "Obama is a terrorist" message is 'satire'.

Let's try this;

"Obama is a terrorist!"

Now I'm a satirical genius, according to you, because of the fact that "he's not a fucking terrorist".


Right?

C'mon man... keep up.

[Hugabear]

109. I give up. You obviously cannot be reasoned with

Somehow, you've decided to re-write the rules for satire, which have stood in place for hundreds of years. Because you cannot identify this particular piece as satire (odd, because so many others have no problem with this), you've decided that stand-alone images simply cannot be considered satire unless they identify themselves as such.

[The Doctor.]

119. You keep reiterating something I haven't done. Sorry, but "repeat until true" only works in RW world

I'll try one more time to give you the BOTD;

I never said it could not be identified as satire. What I said was that by itself, the piece cannot be construed as such.

I'm very dissappointed in some of you, but I'll get over it.

If you need to misconstrue what I'm saying in order to create your arguments, I might suggest going to a debate clinic at the nearest school or community center.

[Hugabear]

125. You just repeated what you claimed you didn't say!

"I never said it could not be identified as satire. What I said was that by itself, the piece cannot be construed as such."

But it IS by itself. Therefore, you're saying that it cannot be construed as satire! You're the one who has REPEATEDLY said throughout this thread that without any clues or accompanying articles or text, then it cannot be construed as satire. You just said that by itself, it can't be construed as satire.

[The Doctor.]

127. Holy crap, read it again until you get it.

[Hugabear]

134. "by itself, the piece cannot be construed as such"

"by itself, the piece cannot be construed as such"


Okay, I've re-read it. And I've also re-read your OP.

Your position is pretty fucking clear. Without extraneous knowledge, internal cues, etc, your position is that a standalone cartoon cannot be construed as satire.

Seriously, what am I missing here? That IS your position, what you've been arguing this whole thread, isn't it?

[The Doctor.]

162. You've reiterated it, yet you still can't seem to understand it.

I'm really not sure how to get through to you here.

I'll try this (you need an imagination for this, so gear it up); Take the image, imagine the image was published on a RW site. Is it still satire? No, of course not... because you need the context of the publisher to see it as such.

Therefore, the image alone does not convey it's 'satirical' intentions.

That's what I've been saying, is it really that hard to grasp?

[Hugabear]

168. You don't fucking get it.

Even if it were on a RW site, it would STILL be satire. Just because you agree or disagree with it, doesn't make it any less satire.

[The Doctor.]

173. So when the RW site depicts Obama as a terrorist, that's 'satire'?

Ummm....



Main Entry: sat·ire
Pronunciation: \ˈsa-ˌtī(-ə)r\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French or Latin; Middle French, from Latin satura, satira, perhaps from (lanx) satura dish of mixed ingredients, from feminine of satur well-fed; akin to Latin satis enough — more at sad
Date: 1501
1 : a literary work holding up human vices and follies to ridicule or scorn
2 : trenchant wit, irony, or sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice or folly


Just to be clear, how would a RW site be utilizing such an image as "Satire"? You mean like; "haha, Obama's a terrorist! (just kidding!)"

That doesn't fit the definition.

[Hugabear]

180. Yes, it would actually

In the case of a right-winger, they could be holding up Obama for ridicule and scorn.

Context is EVERYTHING, and this is a prime example of how a picture can have two different meanings, depending on the context in which it's portrayed, and who the target audience is.

Conservatives, neocons, and religious nutjobs have their own satire, just like we have ours. The fact that I vehemently oppose their viewpoints, and don't consider their satire very funny at all does not make it any less satirical.

[The Doctor.]

182. So no matter how offensive something is, it's 'just satire' and therefore shouldn't offend?

Serious... answer that.

[Hugabear]

186. Quit putting fucking words in my mouth

You know damned well that you can't respond with anything resembling a rational or logical argument, so now you're resorting to putting words in my mouth? At least I've pulled actual quotes from your posts when responding to your drivel.

Show me WHERE I ever said that because it's satire, that it shouldn't offend. YOU CANNOT. I have said quite the opposite in fact, not that I would expect you to acknowledge that.

What I have said repeatedly is that even though something may be highly offensive, it can still be construed as satire.

[The Doctor.]

192. Done nothing of the sort. Your clue should be that it's an interrogative.

When it's a question, it's not 'putting words in your mouth', it's asking you if that's what you're saying. I ask questions to get to the next point. You can come along or throw a fit, up to you really.

Oh, and please don't take any of this personally because I'm certainly not. Lively stuff is fun so long as it stays on track.


Now, the point is this; "Anything I depict in an image, no matter how offensive, must therefore be 'satire'?"

(That's another question, not 'putting words in your mouth'.)

[Lorien]

206. The Colbert Report is a parody of the truth, while the New Yorker cover

parodies a lie-which is why it's a "miss" as satire.

[sakura]

223. So you're inferring that the highly intelligent Dr_elritch--

--a person well known on these pages for his insight and analytical skills-- doesn't read the New Yorker? Simply because he disagrees with you about what constitutes satire?

Sorry, but I'll go with the good doctor on this, dear lioness. He actually gives thoughtful reasons to support his opinion. You don't.

[slackmaster]

8. To a satire-challenged person, nothing is satire

It all makes sense.

[wuushew]

12. Without addressing the merits of the New Yorker illustration I agree

that satire is more effectively conveyed via the written or spoken word.

Is dadaism satire or is it art? Why is the Mona Lisa being lampooned and what is the punch line? :shrug:

[EFerrari]

16. The New Yorker publishes some of the best graphic satire in the country.

That's their signature and there are collections of cartoons going back more than a hundred years.

Good grief.

[The Doctor.]

20. I agree with you. But in this case, it's not the collectors we're talking about.

They understand the context. The vast majority of Americans do not read the New Yorker, and in this case, the image is a single stand-alone message most will see only one way.

[EFerrari]

21. Baloney. It's not a photograph. Go look again.

Who can look at those exaggerated features, that dress and that decor in the Oval Office and think this is a straight depiction?

:wtf:

eta: I must just be warped or something. Because it's obviously silly to me.

[The Doctor.]

32. Really?

Well, I guess you're right then;





HI-larious!

[EFerrari]

35. But that isn't a cartoon. That's an ad. n/t

[The Doctor.]

49. Ummm... Wow. I'll have to get you the definition of "consistency";

Someone here on this thread posted the definition of "cartoon"... gee, who could that have been?


1. A drawing depicting a humorous situation, often accompanied by a caption.
2. A drawing representing current public figures or issues symbolically and often satirically: a political cartoon.
2. A preliminary sketch similar in size to the work, such as a fresco, that is to be copied from it.
3. An animated cartoon.
4. A comic strip.
5. A ridiculously oversimplified or stereotypical representation: criticized the actor's portrayal of Jefferson as a historically inaccurate cartoon.


Now I know you're smarter than that! :P

[EFerrari]

53. Hold the acrimony. Your graphic was not critical where TNY's piece was.

No wonder you're pissed at The New Yorker.

[Lex]

58. Exactly.

It is apparently mighty confusing for some.

[EFerrari]

62. I guess so, Lex.

I was taught by patient people to read all kinds of things from text to images to architecture and body language. They must have been more patient with me than I remember. :)

[whathehell]

75. I agree. It's totally irresponsible given the climate and the fact of it

being an election year.

[Hugabear]

101. WTF? Do you take the time to think about what you're writing?

Sfexpat2000 explained that the New Yorker has collections of cartoons going back over a 100 years, and your reply is that because the vast majority of Americans don't read the New Yorker, all of a sudden this one particular cartoon ceases to be satire?

Really?

The New Yorker has a history of "stand-alone" satirical cartoons. So readers in the past were more sophisticated, and understood satire when they saw it, but today's readers are just too stupid?

[The Doctor.]

153. You've taken 'missing the point' to a whole new level. Please read first.

[NanceGreggs]

17. Very well put.

K & R!

[The Doctor.]

51. Lol! Not well enough apparently.

But I'm having a blast, I love hashing this stuff out.


Thanks Nance!

:hug:

[Cha]

26. Yeah, I just think

it's stupid..so we'll see how it plays out. I've an image of fauxheads licking their collective friggin chops.

[The Doctor.]

34. There's the point...

It's going 'outside' the target audience.

Too clever by half... as they say.

[Brazenly Liberal]

38. By that reasoning, nothing is satire

Quite a number of people didn't know Colbert is doing satire until they were told. Some of his best interviews were with people who didn't get it.

Any satire with any smart, thoughtful message will be missed by some folks. Some will miss it because they are distracted, tired, or for a host of other understandable reasons. Some will miss it because it's just plain over their heads. If everything has to be dumbed down to the most common denominator, I suppose communications will be a great deal safer from inadvertent misunderstanding, but the world will be a great deal poorer for it.

[The Doctor.]

41. In the case of the New Yorker image, there's no cue in the image.

In a Colbert sketch, the cues are everywhere before and after the message.

[Cronus Protagonist]

208. You must be blind then

I take it the 'fro on Mrs. Obama's head didn't come through in braille.

[The Doctor.]

214. So an afro implicitly means she's no threat.

Got it.

And the gun?

The burning flag?

The picture of bin Laden?



The same exact image, published on a RW site, would be offensive to most people here defending TNY. The afro would be seen as racist, and the images would be fear-mongering.

[Cronus Protagonist]

218. You are outraged at your own straw man arguments

The pic did NOT appear on a RW site. It was NOT put forth by someone or an org that agrees with the hyperbolic content. Ergo it iS NOT offensive, but a provocative work of art.

Of course, IF my momma was black... but wait, she wasn't and this pic wasn't published by McCain either.

Lighten up dude :P

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Doctor.]

42. Medication... I recommend it most highly for you.

[Oeditpus Rex]

43. You so smaaaaaaart!

Next can you explain irony, bathos and litotes so us dummies will know when we're supposed to laugh?

[The Doctor.]

46. Missing the point just to be a smart-ass, eh?

It's simple, the image contains no cues to demonstrate that it's satire. The only context that would allow us to see it as such requires outside understanding.

That certainly can't be over the head of someone who uses big words like you do. :P

[Oeditpus Rex]

76. Oh, I got the point, *Doctor*

The one you quite obviously missed is this: It isn't up to you to tell us what we "get."

[The Doctor.]

84. And that would be you, "Rex", missing the point again.

If you read the OP, you'd know that I've told no one what they should or shouldn't "get".

I'm finding a great deal of dissappointment in people I though might otherwise exercise more critical thinking.

[iamtechus]

54. Recognition of something as satire can depend on one's background

And I don't mean their educational background or their exposure to "culture". In order to appreciate the satirical message in something like the Atlantic cover, one must be able to find some humor in the behavior of its target: vicious political operators who think nothing of ruining careers and fouling reputations of undeserving opponents. One must be able to stand far enough back that they are not personally involved.

Example: if you had no emotional connection to WWII, Hogan's Heroes might seem like just a silly little sitcom which found humor in day to day life in a POW camp. On the other hand, if you had loved ones who lost their lives or minds fighting nazis, it would arouse your anger to see it. Imagine if you will a former inmate of a nazi death camp sitting in the retirement home chuckling as they watch HH reruns.

People who have lived long enough know that republicans didn't just recently start using vicious smears to trash political opponents might find it more difficult to see the humor through a mist of anger and tears. Wanna link? Go here to find out how Richard Nixon got his start in politics: Helen Douglas

[The Doctor.]

56. Right, just as I said; outside context.

[EFerrari]

63. Of course. Satire is usually specific to current events.

:shrug:

Who can look at that and mistake it for anything but a cartoon?

[pitohui]

59. if you can't tell that's satire, i have to put the fault on the viewer rather than the artist

we live in a visual society and if a person is so little aware of what's going on that they can look at that 'toon and not realize it's satire, god help 'em, because they're sort of an idiot (or deliberately being an idiot)

this is all much ado about nothing, if you ask me

everybody in the argument who isn't a complete idiot knows perfectly well that it's satire and i don't see the point of pretending otherwise

nobody ever has, nobody ever will, create a piece of satire that is idiot proof, hence all the ado about "a modest proposal"

[aspergris]

60. rubbish

Especially when one considers this is the New Yorker - a magazine I subscribe to - that has been doing great political cartoons for decades.

Note that many magazines left and right wing do this with pictures

[AmyCamus]

61. Only the previously positioned see it as not being satire.

They're making fun of the nuts, not of Obama.

[MNDemNY]

64. If you can't tell it's satire, go back to school.

[The Doctor.]

215. What are the indications that it's satire? Did you read the OP?

There's nothing in the image that defines the target of the satire. The only apparent target is the Obamas, not an elusive and unidentified 'unfounded fear'.

If this image were published on a RW site, you'd find it an offensive message about the Obamas. That's the point.

[skooooo]

65. Satire is satire whether you "get it" or not.....

Ask Voltaire if you don't believe me.

[The Doctor.]

216. I know that, but in this case, as I stated, the message is dependent on extraneous knowledge of TNY.

If a RW site posted this image, you'd find it offensive, but because it's TNY, it's 'satire'.

[stray cat]

66. So is Colbert satire if some idiots think he believes what he says?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

69. All things are defined solely in terms of the dumbest person in the room.

Didn't you know that?

You might think War and Peace is a book full of meaningful sentences, but to an illiterate it's a mass of meaningless squiggles.

So it's a mass of meaningless squiggles.

To say anything else is a slander against the illiterate.

[pitohui]

78. great post EOM

.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

67. And calculus isn't mathematics

I understand that if 6x-2=16 then x=3. So I know something about mathematics.

I do not understand calculus. So calculus is obviously not mathematics (???)

The fact that you got a joke once doesn't mean everything you don't get isn't a joke.

Satire is no more defined in terms of the incomprehension of the slow or the humorless than calculus is defined in terms of my inability to understand it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

74. brilliant. nt

[The Doctor.]

95. I'm amazed at how many people apparently didn't read the OP they are responding to.

At least I've done you that favor. I should expect better from someone that presents the ability to deliberate more thoughtfully.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

158. I read it. You proposed making something I had no trouble understanding more obvious

One thing art generally doesn't need is to be more obvious.

Not being obvious is not a failure unless your intention is to be understood by everyone, like whoever designed the STOP sign.

All art walks a line between being rich and being obvious.

All art thus has a limited audience.

Having a limited audience does not constitute failure.

The fact that some people don't "get" something is only a drawback if its primary objective is to be gotten by everyone.

Since not everyone reads the New Yorker, that would be a bizarre objective.

The New Yorker's traditional goal in selecting covers is to be perplexing, edgy and subtle.

The New Yorker has no obligation to promote Obama's candidacy. They chose to do so for their own reasons, in their own way and aimed at their own audience.

And that's what it is.

[rosesaylavee]

70. I think it is satire for certain parts of the country.

Made me wish I lived in New York where it must be assumed that most people 'get' it.

[bonito]

72. Exactly correct n/t

[Toasterlad]

73. And Just Because You Don't Get It, It Doesn't Mean It's Not Satire.

You sure used a lot of words to say, "It was over my head."

[The Doctor.]

80. Then you didn't 'get' the OP.

You stated as much in very few words, congrats.

Re-read it, make your critique specific, and we can go forward. K?

[Hugabear]

97. Sorry, you're the one not "getting it"

You've stated repeatedly that because it doesn't have accompanying text to identify itself as satire, then it's not satire.

You have single-handedly re-written the rules for what satire is and isn't.

[The Doctor.]

104. Read the OP, then tell me where I said that. I won't hold my breath.

What I said, 'repeatedly', is that it contains no cues that would designate it as 'satire' on it's own.

You need to really learn to read what you're responding to.

[Hugabear]

123. You are still trying to re-write the rules of what satire is

PLENTY of people have been able to recognize this particular piece as satire. Just because YOU and a few others on this board haven't been able to doesn't mean they don't exist.

[Toasterlad]

111. Alrighty.

I found your entire premise to be flawed, because you're saying that the picture in question doesn't "tell" you it's satire. The key word here is "YOU". It didn't tell YOU it was satire, but, and really, not to hurt your feelings, it was whispering something else to me behind your back, and what it was whispering to me was, "I'm satire, but don't let Dr Eldrich know."

However, it's clear that you're not going to be convinced by me giving you my subjective view on what's satire and what isn't (and deservedly so, since satire itself is, of course, completely OBJECTIVE, and is obvious to everyone. It's impossible for two people to look at a satirical image and for one to get some subtleties that the other one misses. I mean, they're both looking at the same picture, for Jehovah's sake! But I digress.), so let's examine your argument on the basis of your analogy.

You maintain that Stephen Colbert works as a satirist because people know he's a satirist. Apparently, it would be impossible for people to pick up on the fact that he was using satire if no one had told them he was using satire. In other words, if you didn't KNOW he was using satire, he wouldn't be funny. So I guess since no one ever told you that the New York Times uses satire ALL THE TIME, you can be excused for not recognizing it when you see it.

[mdmc]

77. its kinda like porn

I can't define satire, but I can tell satire when I see it. The NY'er is satire - the politics of hate. The fact that some see it as a diss on their man does not cloud the fact that the art is satire.

[ismnotwasm]

79. "There's Something that ain't funny about that"

My husband when I showed him the cover. Didn't give him any context. He's one of those guys that cuts through bullshit pretty clearly.

The Newyorker gets to have it's cake and eat it too. Touch the ever so sophisticated sense of the absurd of those who pick up on that kind of thing and amuse the shit out of racists at the same time.

I agree with my husband.

[The Doctor.]

86. I showed it to my wife just a bit ago... again, no history or context, and I asked, "What does this

tell you?"

She said; "It's a stupid cartoon suggesting Obama is a terrorist."

She doesn't read the New Yorker and although highly educated, she didn't get the 'joke'.

[kskiska]

81. In the words of Louis Armstrong…

“If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.”

[deaniac21]

82. The New Yorker has been an absolute right wing rag since day 1.

[A HERETIC I AM]

83. Nicely written piece.

Well thought out and lucid.

Nicely done.

[Overseas]

87. It is satire. It is just making a VERY BORING AND OBVIOUS POINT

That's what is so very disappointing. Ugly cartoon making dumb and obvious point -- OH THOSE DAMN RIGHT WINGERS TELL OUTRAGEOUS LIES ABOUT OBAMA. Yeah, gee golly, how about that! What a fascinating point that really opened our eyes, wowee... Gosh we New Yorker readers just didn't realize that the Right is using horrible smears to play the fear card ! What fresh, original thinking.

The cartoonist has compiled all the awful smears and slanders in one visual image than can sear itself into our minds to make a point that is already obvious to all of its readers.

[The Doctor.]

88. If it were satire, there would be cues IN the image that made that point.

But there are not.

The image merely depicts Obama as a terrorist, and without requisite context to indicate anything deeper. You have to already know that TNY employs such satire.

Colbert, on the other hand, delivers constant cues during his presentation of any such similar material.

[Catchawave]

108. Is this satire ?

Bush and Cheney are gay cowboys? I knew it! :silly:

[SidDithers]

142. Is that making fun of people who are calling Bush & Cheney...

gay cowboys?

Or is it making fun of Bush and Cheney?

Sid

[The Doctor.]

167. Precisely, the target is CLEARY identified.

Not the case in the Obama image.

[SidDithers]

174. I was gonna start a thread with the two images side-by-each...

And ask which one is mocking the subject of the picture, and which one is mocking those who believe the picture to be true.

I agree with you. Without additional context, the Obama cover is just a cheap shot. And most of America isn't going to see the cover with context, they'll see it on CNN or Fox News.

Sid

[Hugabear]

89. Actually it's EXCELLENT satire. Good satire doesn't announce itself as such.

I really feel that we're getting to a point in society where we actually have to stamp "THIS IS SATIRE" in bold red letters anytime someone writes something that is satirical.

The whole point of satire is to be so over-the-top that it actually drives home the opposite point.

satire: 1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.

3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.
(from Dictionary.com)

[The Doctor.]

102. Then this is great satire;

The point isn't that these are not outrageous images or notions, they most certainly are. The crux of the issue is that this pointed collection of images quite obviously state that; "Obama is a terrorist" without any cues to the contrary. The mere fact that they are 'over the top' does not constitute such a cue or directly communicate 'satire' to the viewer. In order to perceive the 'satire', the viewer has to have extraneous knowledge about both politics and TNY.

As a stand-alone piece, it does not convey that it's "just kidding about that whole terrorist thing", nor does it say, "These are just silly fears that we're lampooning now."

I get your point; "If you don't get that it's satire, then you aren't paying attention to the political climate and have an understanding of TNY.

THAT's MY point... as a piece of work, it is not by itself 'satire'.

Unless you can tell me what, in the image, tells us it's "just kidding" or "portraying silly fears".

[Hugabear]

106. Satire makes a point. What is the point of your cartoon?

You keep confusing cartoons with satire. Not all cartoons are satire.

Besides, as Sfexpat2000 pointed out above, the cartoon that you keep re-posting is from an ad. It's not trying to make a social statement or point.

As far as "any clues to the contrary" - I think the fact that most Americans know that Obama is not a terrorist should be a pretty big clue.

Honestly, I'd really love to hear an answer from you on this - do you really think that all satire needs to be identified as such?

[The Doctor.]

114. The point? Well, that depends... based on your version of satire,

it's obviously a commentary on the 'silly idea' that black people are buffoons that can't play instruments.

Obviously. The fact that it's ridiculous makes it so.


Whether it's from an ad or not is irrelevant as you would have to have that extraneous knowledge to know that.


Why that point can't sink in is almost shocking. Also shocking is that you've oversimplified what I've said into 'needing word labels' or some other such nonsense.


Really, I'm urging you to actually think it through before responding again. You seem to have missed so much.

Please catch up first... I shouldn't have to 'spell it out' for you. :P

[scarletwoman]

107. So, who is being ridiculed in that image? I don't see any people in that image besides the Obamas.

If you are using a visual image to a satiric purpose, shouldn't the target of the "ridicule" (definition #1 in your post) appear in the image? Otherwise, how is it a satiric image?

If the actual target of the "irony, sarcasm, ridicule" is invisible and unseen, then how can it can it be a satiric image?

There are scores of visual satires throughout human history, and they all have the same thing in common: the TARGET of the ridicule is what is depicted, not the VICTIM of the person being ridiculed unaccompanied by the TARGET.

sw

[Hugabear]

112. The target does not have to be a person - in this case, it's an idea

Where in the rulebook does it say that the "target of ridicule" has to be a person? In this case, the target of ridicule is the meme that Obama is a flag-hating, terrorist-loving, Muslim.

You do realize that an idea can be the subject of ridicule, that it doesn't always have to be a person?

[scarletwoman]

130. If you want to express an idea visually, you use some sort of symbol.

Ideas are, of course, insubstantial -- as in, non-material. Visual art uses symbols as representations of whatever ideas the artist wishes to convey.

Newspaper editorial cartoons depicting Big Business as a fat man in a top hat are making use of a visual symbol to convey the idea of greed. It's a pretty common iconography, right?

So what symbolic iconographic depictions of bigotry and ignorance are there in the New Yorker cartoon? The only actual IMAGES in that cartoon are symbolic iconographic depictions of radicalism, terrorism, and anti-Americanism.

There is NO symbolic iconography conveying bigotry and ignorance. A static image is closed set. You can't fudge and say that what ISN'T in the image is the meaning of the image. The medium is the message. What you see is what you get.

It completely fails as a satirical image because it completely omits any depiction of the alleged target of the satire.

sw

[The Doctor.]

116. An even more important observation.

Brilliant.

I'll incorporate it if that's alright with you.

[scarletwoman]

118. Absolutely! Be my guest! I'm glad I could be of help.

:D

[Hugabear]

120. Way to totally overlook the point

Not all satire is directed at people, you know. Quite a bit of satire is directed at ideas, policies, stereotypes, etc.

[The Doctor.]

122. So... what in the image tells us who or 'what' the target is?

[Hugabear]

124. Have you been living in a cocoon for the past year?

The image is playing off the numerous Right-Wing attack emails that have been floating around. Obama hates the flag. Obama is secretly a Muslim. His wife is a radical. Obama/Osama.

The clues doesn't have to be in the picture. They're all around you.

[The Doctor.]

126. Thanks for proving you can't even read the posts your responding to.

Please look up 'extraneous', and then try again.


Way too much incomprehension to shore up for one night, I'm out for now.


BTW, I'm glad you're participating, I really am, but I'm serious... get on the same page first.

Cheers.

[Hugabear]

131. Your argument relies on the assumption that people are complete idiots

Of course the cartoon relies on people's extraneous knowledge. It assumes that its readers do not live in a vacuum, that they are aware of the attacks and rumors about Obama.

Pretty much ALL political cartoons rely on the reader's extraneous knowledge to understand the cartoon.

[The Doctor.]

144. Ummm... no, how many times have I told you? This is ridiculous!

My point is so stunningly simple;

People don't have to be "complete idiots" to not get it, they have to have extraneous knowledge outside the context of the singular image... knowledge that the image does not provide.

With other forms of satire, the indication of satire is given in the medium through one means or another. There is no such cue in TNY image.

Look, you can't even wrap your head around such a simple point no matter how many times and in how many ways I put it, so you're either out of your depth, or you're just screwing around by assigning words and positions I've never expressed or taken.

There's no point in trying to get through anything this thick.


Have a good day.

[Hugabear]

165. If you don't have "extraneous knowledge", then you're an IDIOT

THAT point is so stunningly simple. Every fucking political cartoon in existence requires the reader to have some modicum of knowledge of the subject matter in order to understand it.

[The Doctor.]

169. So everyone who doesn't read the New Yorker is an idiot?

You're hopeless.

I'm just amazed that this is so far over your head.

[Hugabear]

171. Did I fucking say that?

I said that anyone who doesn't have knowledge of what's going on around them is an idiot. If you see that cartoon, and you are not aware of all the emails floating around accusing Obama of being an America-hating, Muslim terrorist, then yes - you're an idiot.

Are you just deliberately being this obtuse?

[The Doctor.]

175. Well, you said that you have to have extraneous knowledge not to be an idiot...

that would pretty much mean that someone has to read and/or understand TNY.

So yes, you basically did say that.

Oh, and it's 'abstruse'. (though I will give you that language drift finally made 'a 180° angle' mean 'abstruse')

[Hugabear]

183. Nonsense

I explained what I meant by "extraneous knowledge". Of course it helps if one is a reader of The New Yorker. That's who the satire is primarily targeted at. But extraneous knowledge means knowledge that exists outside the picture alone. You're the one who keeps bringing up the point that without any outside knowledge, without any explicit cues in the picture itself, that it isn't satire. My point is that if you're looking at that picture, then you surely possess enough outside knowledge to understand what is being poked fun of in that picture. I clearly stated that just about everyone who sees that is aware of all the RW attack-emails targeting Obama.

BTW, my use of the word "obuse" is correct. So once again, you've exposed yourself for someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.



Main Entry:
ob·tuse Listen to the pronunciation of obtuse
Pronunciation:
\äb-ˈtüs, əb-, -ˈtyüs\
Function:
adjective
Inflected Form(s):
ob·tus·er; ob·tus·est
Etymology:
Middle English, from Latin obtusus blunt, dull, from past participle of obtundere to beat against, blunt, from ob- against + tundere to beat — more at ob-, contusion
Date:
15th century

1 a: not pointed or acute : blunt b (1)of an angle : exceeding 90 degrees but less than 180 degrees (2): having an obtuse angle <an obtuse triangle> — see triangle illustration cof a leaf : rounded at the free end

2 a: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid b: difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression

[The Doctor.]

219. Wow... you really can't read straight, can you?

Learn to read;

"(though I will give you that language drift finally made 'a 180° angle' mean 'abstruse')"

"Abstruse" is the original appropriate word, 'obtuse', through 'language drift' came to adopt that meaning.

I never said it was the wrong word, nor was I criticizing it's use, I was just being helpful.



Being in permanent adversarial mode isn't good for you.

[Binka]

139. Bless Your Heart For Playing With The Dumb Shits

I have a sick seven year old today and I have no patience for these ass hats. Jesus GOD are these people driving? Critical thinking just floats by them.

[The Doctor.]

154. There's a fine distinction I just can't seem to get across to them.

That's as much my fault as theirs.

But yeah, it's really frustrating that what is so blindingly obvious to me seems to go right over their heads.

[scarletwoman]

110. Many thanks for an excellent post! I can't believe how such a simple and forthright analysis

seems to be beyond the comprehension of so many people.

Rec'd, of course.

sw

[Hugabear]

113. Simple is right.

Too many people are taking a very simplistic look at this. Satire is meant to be controversial, to stir up discussion and debate. That's what it's for, to draw attention to a topic.

Every single person showing outrage over this cartoon has just done exactly what the author intended.

[The Doctor.]

115. 'Simple' is in your head.

You have not yet demonstrated an understanding of the OP.

Try doing that first.

[Catchawave]

129. The famous Brokeback cover was satire

because we know Bush and Cheney aren't gay cowboys, as far as I know :D



It's obvious the Obama cover IS satire because of the exaggeration of their costumes. The burning flag and OBL portrait were my cue. Also, I know they are not what they are portrayed, I chuckled, then forgot it.

The artist was on Morning Joe today, unapologetic and thrilled with the reaction, as any editorial cartoonist would be.

Thanks Paint It Black, I was starting to feel unpatriotic for not feeling outraged :)

[Hugabear]

132. The New Yorker cover was obviously meant to be very controversial

I'd say that the artist got exactly the reaction that he wanted.

[EFerrari]

149. You are probably right.

And when the outrage dies down or while it dies down, I hope every single one of those smears becomes the object of public ridicule.

DUers will hate this but, this is one of my favorite NYer covers ever. It is a very precise rendition of what the mouth breathers say in their cowardly anonymous forwarded emails and of their nightmares. In the language of the cartoon, the Obamas are shown as powerful leaders, lol, who enjoy their work.

:evilgrin:

[The Doctor.]

145. Really? And how many had been trying to get people to believe that B+C

were gay cowboys?

That's truly hyperbolic, 180° from reality (as far as we know). That's what makes it funny from almost any angle.

There are people in America that are unsure whether Obama is Muslim... and more than there should be by far. Just because you and I know that it's silly doesn't mean it's not cutting too close to people's perceptions, especially considering that this is what the RW wants people to think about him.

There is nothing in the image that indicates it's satire, and if this picture were put up on a RW blog, all by itself, you'd lambaste them for being such fearmonging racist xenophobes.

Seriously think about it; take the pure image and imagine, if you can, that this image were created for and posted at Rush Limbaugh's site... not the New Yorker.

Can you honestly say you'd still call it satire?

If yes, then I'll remember that the next time anyone complains about 'exaggerated' images on other sites.

I'll be sure to remind you that "it's just satire".

[QC]

117. What is your doctorate in?

I think it's a pretty safe bet that it's not in art or literature.

[The Doctor.]

121. It's not, but that's beside the point.

Tell me, what in the image conveys that it's 'satire'.

Don't say that extraneous knowledge is necessary, because that would mean that you didn't understand the OP.

Also; Who, based on the image, is the target of the 'satire'?

(That's also one of those key components without which 'satire' is lost.)

[Hugabear]

128. Ah, but extraneous knowledge IS necessary

Now it finally comes out.

The New Yorker assumes that its readers are aware of current events, that they are well versed in politics, that they know what's going on.

Sorry, but you simply cannot change the rules, and say that extraneous knowledge isn't allowed, to try and make your point that a picture by itself, with no obvious cues, isn't satire.

[QC]

133. I understand the OP; I just think it's absurd.

There is no text or work of art--not a one--that exists outside of a context, which is what you seem to be asking that this picture do.

If you think that the New Yorker cover is bad satire, then argue that. If you think that Obama should not be satirized, for whatever reason, then argue that. If you believe that the picture doesn't work as satire, then say so. (I actually agree with you that there is nothing in the picture itself to indicate who it targets. That's an excellent point. I wonder how that could be remedied?)

Expecting a text to live and work outside of a context, however, just doesn't cut it. A second-rate student in a sophomore lit survey knows better than that.

[HousePainter]

135. The OP didn't tell me it was a joke

so I didn't get it at first. I just thought, "this guy needs a laughing-eye dog".
Then on second reading I noticed that he was using deliberately stilted "academic" language to talk about a cartoon,
you know, "un homage" to the whole de-constructionist shtick that so many found entertaining back in the 70s.
Then I saw the whole message in a thought bubble emanating from Stephen Colbert's head so I realized it was permissible to label it satire. Finally through clever juxtaposition and a sprinkling of sometimes simple clues it appeared to be nothing more than another ironic New Yorker cover.
God, this is really hard work !!

[Vattel]

136. so?

"I never said it could not be identified as satire. What I said was that by itself, the piece cannot be construed as such."

If I understand you, you agree that, given the relevant context, the picutre has satirical content; so why do you think it is so important to point out that by itself (i.e., ripped out of its context) it lacks satirical content? Interpretation of language, art, policical cartoons, the law, etc., always requires identifying the relevant context. So it's no so much that I don't agree with you when you suggest that the picture itself, abstracted from its context, is not satirical. I just don't see why anyone should care.

[onenote]

137. wait, is it not satire if "it" can't tell you it is, or if "you" can't tell it is

Personally, I could tell it was satire. Badly done satire, imo, but clearly meant as satire. Didn't like it, wished they hadn't done it, but never for a moment was confused about what it was.

And apparently I'm not the only one who recognized what its intent was. So is your definition of what makes satire based entirely on whether you get that something was intended as satire?

[DailyGrind51]

141. The whole scam by the characters Bialystock and Bloom in

Mel Brooks' "The Producers", was relying on the audience viewing "Springtime for Hitler" as being in poor taste, causing the play to close so that the producers didn't have to pay the investors. However, the audience began to "get" the humor and the play was a hit, forcing the producers and their Nazi writer to blow up the theater.

[The Doctor.]

177. Great play!

And very pertinent observation.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

155. Poorly worded title.

Perhaps: If it is indistinguishable from the material it is satirizing, it is not satire.

[The Doctor.]

156. Well, I was trying to encompass the 'implicit' message too.

But all in all, that's the point. There's nothing implicit in the image that communicates that it's satire.

[EFerrari]

193. If a satirical image in a venue for satire is indistinguishable to a reader,

then it's the reader's problem, not the venue's.

And if the depiction seems too close to reality, it's the culture's problem, not the artist's.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

195. If it's indistinguishable to the reader, it's the reader's problem.

If it's simply indistinguishable, it's the author's problem.

[EFerrari]

198. Well, no. Otherwise no one would read Chaucer, Shakespeare or Milton.

All of whom wrote satire, all of whom would be opaque to DU today and all of whom would be attacked by DU for their opinions today if the lightbulb didn't go on immediately.

Readers aren't born, they're made. And the kind of careless anti-intellectualism on this board over this flap just blows me away.

Images, contrary to the OP's assertion, are not static. They have interacting elements and also interact with their audience and with its cultural literacy which is how layers of meaning are generated. In order not to see the subversion in this piece, you have to ignore the venue, the form AND the content. You have to totalize it into a statement about Obama when common sense tells you, just for starters, that it's no such thing.

Maybe DU censors should go with unambiguous stick figures if they really want to make sure that nothing beyond the narrow world of their approval comes out between now and November.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

201. The New Yorker cartoonist is no Chaucer, Shakespeare, or Milton.

And Chaucer's, Shakespeare's, and Milton's satire weren't indistinguishable from what they satirized.

"Maybe DU censors should go with unambiguous stick figures if they really want to make sure that nothing beyond the narrow world of their approval comes out between now and November."

Who said anything about censorship?

[EFerrari]

205. Try running the big three's satire by DU and see what happens.

:)

This is my deal: If people hate this thing, that's their privilege. But what I see is someone in the corporate media FINALLY hitting back and hard, pushing back hard enough to make people talk about this bullshit. Finally.

It's not convenient in any way. But then, there is no convenient time to talk about the distortions in the media. Whenever we try, the conversation is overwhelmed by niceness and nothing, NOTHING, changes.

So, my wish would be that TNY would do a cover just as outrageous from now on. Every two weeks. Because what this shit does to us is not "nice" and I don't see anyone else even getting close to doing anything about it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

207. Hitting back hard?

You call the NYer's cover "hard" satire?

Geez Louise.

Have YOU ever read Chaucer or Milton or Shakespeare? Really? I don't mean Cliff Notes.

[EFerrari]

209. LOL! Yes, I have.

:)

eta: My training is in Shakespeare which means I had to spend 'way too much time mimicking the Farmer's Daughter reading Chaucer to my students and trying to sell Milton's divorce tracts to my feminist students. I was laughing at all the time I spent doing that, not at you in any way.

[WhollyHeretic]

157. "With Colbert, his established contrarian persona

is all the context his audience needs to know that his depictions are a commentary on some of the more ridiculous attitudes of the right wing."

The New Yorker doesn't have an established identity? You just keep making up new rules to serve your point.

[The Doctor.]

164. Oh pu-leeze.

The clue in all of that is "his audience".

Same for the New Yorker.


The point is very simple; The image, by itself, is not 'satire'. Unfortunately, many people who are not perennial readers of TNY will be exposed to that image. People who don't 'get' Colbert don't watch Colbert.

[Hugabear]

176. You keep proving that you don't know what satire is

Satire is still satire, regardless of who is looking at it.

There are quite a few people who do not watch the Colbert Report, and in fact have never even heard of him. Does that make what he does any less satire? Or is that okay, because YOU understand that it is?

[The Doctor.]

181. As do you.

This is satire;



And this;



And this;





Just because you don't get that it's satire doesn't mean it's not satire... right?

(Please don't tell me this is over your head too?)

[Hugabear]

184. YES - those are satire

Offensive satire, but still satire.

Do you really not understand that satire can be offensive?

[The Doctor.]

189. Finally we're getting to the point.

So... is the image in TNY 'offensive' or not?

Ultimately, intention is part of the determination of 'satire'. If I try and tell you that "Obama is a terrorist" in any depiction, then despite the fact that my message is straightforward, and I intend that "Obama is a terrorist", that's still satire?

[Hugabear]

194. It doesn't matter whether it's offensive or not

Obviously, that cartoon is offensive to some. But to many others, they understand quite well what the author is saying.

Just because it offends some people doesn't make it any less satire!

[WhollyHeretic]

178. Is this thread satire? It would be some terrific satire of people who can't comprehend satire.

Or maybe a parody?

(I saw the satire right away in the picture. Everyone doesn't have to for it to be satire. You may not like the picture but you don't get to reinvent the concept of satire.)

[dorkulon]

159. This is ridiculous. Are you trying to say that no one should make jokes

if there's any possibility that somebody might not get it? Are we to live in a world of Gallaghers?

[The Doctor.]

163. No, read it again.

Where in the OP did I say any such thing?

[fascisthunter]

179. I'm an Illustrator and Yes it is Satire

[The Doctor.]

187. And it would also be satire if it were published on a RW site?

The message that "Obama is a terrorist" comes through much louder and clearer than "The fear that Obama is a terrorist is silly and unfounded.".

If the same image were published on a RW site, which interpretation would fit then?

[slackmaster]

190. As with this site, there is a range of opinions on most RW sites

People who accuse Obama of being a closet Muslim are subjected to ridicule on a wide range of forums.

[EFerrari]

199. The venue is part of that context that you claim isn't there

[Lorien]

210. I'm also a professional illustrator. It's a poor attempt at satire

satire is humorous because it employs wit to bring attention to human failings; there always needs to be a bit of truth to the subject of the barb. There's no truth behind the right wing's attacks on Obama, so satirizing a lie falls short of true satire. The New Yorker cover is a roundabout means of satirizing the right wing attack machine at best, which makes it weak.

As I've stated before: think of "Blazing Saddles". It satirized the ignorance behind racism. We know that Mel Brooks is not a racist, but if he had instead portrayed the new sheriff as a crack dealing, bank robbing, white woman raping watermelon eater it would have been extreme and absurd to a degree that some might think it was funny, but it would fail as satire aimed against racism.

[EFerrari]

220. The human failing with regard to the Obamas in this piece is how they are seen.

The satire couldn't be more dead on because it enacts what it depicts.

[fascisthunter]

221. See.. I Find it Humorous in How it Portrays the RIGHT WING's Fears

of Obama.... their ridiculous caricature of him was illustrated to make that point. And knowing the magazine it's printed on makes it obvious to me....

...and now this issue is going to penetrate the publics discourse on how absurd their (right wing) point of view is. It won't hurt Obama.... those that would somehow find affirmation of the right wing's caricature satirized won't vote for Obama anyways. It will make him stronger.

Obama's reaction to this, at least the statement that was posted here on DU was a smart one. I wish people would stop making more out of it than there is. Use it on the right wing and mock them for it.....

[slackmaster]

188. It isn't what you say it is unless you can explain yourself without the crutch of the verb "to be"

How about that?

[Hugabear]

191. Thanks to the OP for coming up with new rules for satirical drawings

1. It must not be offensive. If it's offensive, then it's not satire. Especially if it appears on a RW site, then it cannot be satire.

2. It must be clearly identifiable as satire, either by accompanying text, or by obvious clues within the drawing.

3. It must not require any outside knowledge on the part of the reader. You cannot assume that the reader is well versed in current events and politics.

[The Doctor.]

196. No matter how many time you repeat it, it doesn't make it true. Nowhere do I 'rewrite' the rules

of satire.

You want to start a fourth subthread on the same issue?

You really think that if you just keep repeating yourself that you'll make it true? That's RW tactics.

(Wow... I'm having deja-vu here!)

[skip fox]

197. It has satire all over it. "Implicit" only means something is less obvious

explicit.

I thought it was funny. Mostly a rag on Faux Noise (since they're the ones who actually called his action with his wife a "terrorist fist-bump" and keep implying a Muslim background).

It's not about Obama, but about Faux & Fiends.

[Iris]

200. or, just because you can't tell it's satire doesn't mean it's not. n/t

[Cronus Protagonist]

204. The "terrorist first bump" AND the flag in the fire told me it was satire

And I have to say that 'fro was a dead giveaway as well as the weapon on Mrs. Obama's shoulder. To take such a thing seriously requires deliberate and active ignorance.