The problem with the New Yorker cover is that it's not readily apparent what the point of it is. It looks exactly like something that might appear on the cover of a right-wing rag. So you have to reason through a little bit and conclude that the artist is making fun, not of the Obamas, but of what is believed about them by some. By the time you're done with that exercise, it's not very funny.
By way of comparison, I'l like to offer some other images that are somewhat in the same grain. Here's the first:
This to me is not funny and not very clever. It's hard to tell if someone is making fun of Jesus or of his followers or politically conservative Christians. I don't enjoy this one at all.
Here's the second:
In this one Jesus is apparently guarding the Mexican border, gun in hand. The problem is that it's hard to tell if it's serious or not. It's like I want it to be funny, but it's just disturbing -- a lot like the New Yorker cover. I could imagine this on the cover of some Ku Klux Klan publication.
Here's the last image:
To me this one is extremely funny. It's so absurd that there is no question that it is meant to be satire. The proponents of this view of Jesus are readily identified. And it encompasses practically the whole right-wing agenda in one small picture. And as you look at it, you realize that however absurd it is, it really does portray the absurdity of right-wing ideology as it intersects with religion, creating a muscular, bad-ass Jesus. In that sense, it's not just funny, but true. It works on several levels and it makes you think, even as you have a smile on your face.
I think the problem with the New Yorker cover is that it's not "over the top" enough. We have to think about it too much. It makes Obama and his wife look ugly, which they are not. It didn't make me think; it just made me wish that I hadn't seen it.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Tom Cordle
Paul J. O'Rourke
Rick Lucke
Whindbagg
Kanuk
Mick Arran
Salon.com
Comments
I was unable to say that with all the words at my disposal.
But it wasn't funny and yes, satire is supposed to at least be mildly amusing or at the very least clever. Without that it is just bashing, which most people do not enjoy. People enjoy satire because it is funny in the face of something horrible. Bashing without wit in the face of horrible is just more horrible.
We may just disagree on this point about satire, as I certainly agree that they have the right to publish whatever dreck they like.
I have the right to not respect them for that.
satire def
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
synonyms see "wit"
Just for the record, I didn't like the first Jesus example; LOVE the second one ( I think it's hilarious and should probably download it); and think the last one is pretty funny. Just for the record.
The post that Stellaa linked to earlier at BagNewsNotes was funnier because the areas labeled in red do push it over the top. But I have to stand by what I posted or commented earlier... satire's gotta come from the oppressed party, not the oppressing one. (The New Yorker may be friendly to the Obamas, but they are part of the media who has been spreading all of this crap.)
http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/
What might have been EXTREMELY funny here would be this cartoon as a billboard in the south, with two obvious "red-staters" holding guns, wearing hunting gear complete with wide red suspenders and baseball caps, one chewing on a piece of hay and the other saying "See, I told ya".
This scene includes the oppresser, slams the illiterati outside of New York (so would please their audience), and would have made a huge statement. Otherwise, in my considered opinion, in its current form the cover is horrendously inexcusable...
I don't think his point is that a magazine can't print something, but probably could have found something else that worked better that fulfilled their intention AND created the appropriate perception. The New Yorker has *not* trangressed, but it *has* failed.
I don't think satire is necessarily improved by humor. The NY cover made me uncomfortable but given the issues it is exploring, I consider that to be, overall, not a bad thing.
We'll never have a national discourse on race if the discussion can't absorb the intention and meaning of all types of voices.
And I"m with Blake - I thought the Jesus at the border cartoon was fantastic. One of the best send-ups of the "God is on our side" crap I've ever seen.
My husband sent me this link -- I think it is a great article.