picture's too small to see
Click to enlarge.
The click-to-enlarge version is still too low-res to read all the text. Try this one instead.
This is definitely an all-time classic. (See, it's still possible for us to agree on some things...)
For some reason, the link I posted doesn't work. Paste this URL into your browser instead (without the quote marks):
"http://www.ideobook.net/img/asme_40_covers/4.jpg"
Look at the cartoonist's other work & you'll get the nature of his thought (i.e. Achmedinijad sitting on the toilet & a sandaled foot coming under the stall, Bush as Cheney's wife, etc.). This is the one time somebody seems to have cared; he was always vulgar & transgressive.
Pinchas Giller: Look at the cartoonist's other work... This is the one time somebody seems to have cared; he was always vulgar & transgressive.
Are you talking about Saul Steinberg, or Barry Blitt?
Look at the cartoonist's other work & you'll get the nature of his thought (i.e. Achmedinijad sitting on the toilet & a sandaled foot coming under the stall, Bush as Cheney's wife, etc.). This is the one time somebody seems to have cared; he was always vulgar & transgressive.
The Achmedinijad/sandaled foot thing is (with inspiration from Larry Craig) probably a response to Achmedinijad's declaration that there are no homosexuals in Iran.
Probably the most offensive thing about that is the idea that the foot is wearing a sandal, as though the Iranians are all backward, desert dwelling, people, when they are, in fact, a highly educated and pretty modern society.
Classic poster.
All New Yorker covers do have titles.
“The Obama cover (below) works. It's meant to satire the media's habit of dumbing things down.”
Not really. Its for the purpose of lampooning his right wing critics (of which segments of the media happened to be included). Its not meant as a broad indictment of the media.
meh. New Yorkers.
Now you've got it right. It really is a funny cover and captures all the garbage about Obama in one place. There are probably a few right wingers who don't get the humor and think it's all true.
The people who read the New Yorker are the subset most likely to vote for Barrack Obama anyhow. Therefore it is not bally likely that they will be negatively influenced by that cover.
The rest of us read it, for the cartoons, at the dentisist office, just before getting another teeth pulled. If it did not have the best cartoons, it wouild be the most boring magazine on the face of the planet.
And trust me, I know by boring magazines. I read from Bollywood gossip. Actually, my wife reads that - I merely look at the pretty pictures of sari-clad ladies with parts reminiscent of over-ripe mangoes. It reminds me why I left. Can't stand bulgy ladies that smell of ghee and coconut oil. But I digress.
One vote, five stars? So okay then, my good man, where is the vote button. And I should say that my vote can be bought.
My finhgers urge to click. Both itchy and antsy. rsvp.
---Grant Patel
I've always liked this one better - my parents had a copy of it while I was growing up. This one's a map, from quite a bit earlier - 1937, but it still rings true. You can click on the link on the left to download it.
http://www.leventhalmapcenter.or...10595/?
mtid=316
unfortunately, the resolution's not quite good enough to make out some of the funny things about the names of the cities. One I remember is "Indianapolis and Minneapolis, the twin cities"
Just discovered that the flash version on the screen is excellent resultion and you can see all the details. Just click on "FULLSCREEN" and then use the slider to enlarge
"Probably the most offensive thing about that is the idea that the foot is wearing a sandal, as though the Iranians are all backward, desert dwelling, people, when they are, in fact, a highly educated and pretty modern society."
They have only themselves to blame for this image. The late shah made a point of wearing western suits often, to show his country driving modern vehicles, and having a modern western nightlife. It might have been a repressive regime, but they crafted a better image.
After the revolution, nearly everyone made a point of old traditional Persian dress. They started executing gay teenagers, girls with too much makeup, and other stupid senseless nastiness. They portrayed themselves as committed to moving backward in time and ready to do so with a murderous vengeance. It's an image they created and sold to the world in a fit of pique that in retrospect gained respect from no one and was entirely counterproductive.
DYS - LOL. I love it that "Idaho" is listed as a city in Oregon. 
The editor of the magazine said on the radio that it was supposed to be satirizing the view of right-wingers, but go ahead with your interpretation. What does he know?
The name of the cover is "the politics of fear" not "The GOP's worst nightmare"
“The editor of the magazine said on the radio that it was supposed to be satirizing the view of right-wingers, but go ahead with your interpretation. What does he know?
Mike S | 07.15.08 - 5:19 pm | #”
Its surprising that a person who runs a blog that has a strong political focus really has trouble grasping what is essentially very standard political satire. Probably something to keep in mind next time hes engaging in political debate.
BY FAR the best New Yorker cover EVER. Yet, its impossible to get a cheap copy in the form of a poster!
Its surprising that a person who runs a blog that has a strong political focus really has trouble grasping what is essentially very standard political satire. Probably something to keep in mind next time hes engaging in political debate.
Wow, issues much loser? If you take even two seconds you'll find many other writers - some of them on my own boards - who share view of this cover.
Wow, issues much loser? If you take even two seconds you'll find many other writers - some of them on my own boards - who share view of this cover.
DovBear | 07.15.08 - 10:50 pm | #
Tsk tsk. Take it easy there big guy. And please do show me these “writers” who think the intent of the cover was to satire the “media's habit of dumbing things down”. I read a dozen or so mainstream publications and all of them clearly understood it to be a lampoon of obama’s right wing critics. The editor of the new yorker confirmed that this was there intent, so it seems as if you are disagreeing with the new yorker editors on what their own intent was.
This quote from the guardian seems to hit close to home for this blog:
“Rather depressingly, it has been suggested that people won't understand the point of cartoon, titled "The Politics of Fear", and that the cover should have included a caption.”
I thought it was distasteful but it was not racist or anything as people made it sound. Rather, it was supposed to make people feel stupid for actually thinking that.
>...This quote from the guardian seems to hit close to home for this blog:
“Rather depressingly, it has been suggested that people won't understand the point of cartoon, titled "The Politics of Fear", and that the cover should have included a caption.”
Anonymous | 07.15.08 - 11:25 pm | # <
There are millions of voters who are "bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations", to quote Mr. Obama. These people are not as sophisticated as readers of the liberal New Yorker and will not recognize the satire. However, what they will see is a cover that confirms their thoughts about Mr. Obama and his foreign affairs policies. They will draw inspiration from their religion and guns to cast their votes against Mr. Obama.
What they do know is that the next president will nominate at least 2 supreme court justices and they detest the likes of Ginsberg and Stevens.
If McCain is smart he can channel their frustrations to his advantage.
And please do show me these “writers” who think the intent of the cover was to satire the “media's habit of dumbing things down”.
What I meant was that many people agreed that this didn't work as satire of the right wing because no target of the satire is indicated - anyway, merely showing how the opposition thinks isn't satire.
You can find this pov almost anywhere you look, and your own guardian quote recognizes it.
By suggesting it works better as a satire of the media, I'm giving the New Yorker the benefit of the doubt, by suggesting they attempted something that functions succesfuly as satire. If the magazine editor refuses to accept credit for something devilish and clever, and prefers to insist that his cover is just a clumsy left-handed swipe at RW morons, well that's his business.
“By suggesting it works better as a satire of the media . .”
This is not at all what you did. You didn’t say it “works better” as a satire of the media, you said it was “meant” as a satire of the media. Meaning, you didn’t get it.
This is not at all what you did. You didn’t say it “works better” as a satire of the media, you said it was “meant” as a satire of the media. Meaning, you didn’t get it.
Your error
Once a work of art is published the intentions of the artist (let alone the non-artist who commissioned and/or published it) are quite irrelevant. All that matters is what is contained in the work of art itself. You can't dismiss my interp by telling me how someone else interpreted it, or by telling me what someone else intended. You have to use evidence present in the work of art itself.
In other words, all that's revealed by telling me that the New Yorker's editor "intended" to accomplish something is that he failed at what he meant to do, or that his artist failed to realize the ambition - unless you can defend the success of their effort with evidence contained in the work of art itself.
"Once a work of art is published the intentions of the artist (let alone the non-artist who commissioned and/or published it) are quite irrelevant."
Look, you can spin this as a “work of art” or any other way you choose. Bottom line, there was a political joke told and you simply didn’t get it.
can someone photoshop this to reflect the parochialism of us Charedim by replacing Manhattan with Brooklyn and 9th nad 10th Avenues with Boro Park, Williamsburg and Crown Hights???
It reminds me why I left. Can't stand bulgy ladies that smell of ghee and coconut oil. But I digress.
Ya mean Hindus have OTDs too? Gee... we have more in common than the fear of the Paki A-Bomb!
Look, you can spin this as a “work of art” or any other way you choose. Bottom line, there was a political joke told and you simply didn’t get it.
That's not true at all. The artist can say what he intended; its up to critics to decide if he succeeded. If the artist intended to satirize RW thinking about the Obamas he failed, for the reasons given here, there, and everywhere. As a critic (or someone acting in the role of a critic anyway) I'm entitled to interpret that cover any way I choose, and if you wish to refute my interpretation you have to do it with evidence present in the cover itself. You don't seem to have the chops for that, though, so instead you insult me. Typical.
Ya mean Hindus have OTDs too? Gee... we have more in common than the fear of the Paki A-Bomb!
Please, not a Hindu. A semi-demi observant, sort of, Parsee. Zoroastrian. Both a beef-eater and a gin-drinker (also Beefeater).
What does OTD mean? On The Dots?
---Grant Patel
OTD= Off the Derekh, Jews, particularly youth, who've left the Torah path after being raised observant.
It is a social problem plaguing Frum Jewish Society society.
“That's not true at all. The artist can say what he intended; its up to critics to decide if he succeeded.”
There is nothing wrong with having a different interpretation, its the not getting the universal understanding that I was referring to. In this case, it was universally understood by every single writer and critic to mean the exact same thing- which was also the exact intent of the author. Not every interpretation is valid, and yours is not. The only thing they question is whether or not people would get the joke or find the image itself offensive. Perhaps the joke wasnt funny, but the joke itself is clear.
Your explanation is overly cumbersome because people don’t associate the media as a whole as being anti-obama, so they wouldn’t associate a negative caricature of obama with the media. Perhaps they would specifically tie it to the right wing media- but they wouldnt take it as an indictment of how the institution of media dumbs things down. The fact that not a single other person understood it to mean what you claim is pretty strong evidence that your version isn’t “successful”
“many people agreed that this didn't work as satire of the right wing because no target of the satire is indicated - anyway, merely showing how the opposition thinks isn't satire.”
Not satire because no target is indicated?? Link? I have heard people say this is why “less sophisticated” readers wont get the joke, but not that it would disqualify it from being satire. Many people dont understand a lot of new yorker cartoons. And anyway, actually showing the target of the satire would be like hitting the reader over the head with a hammer- complete overkill. (If you want to see political cartoons in such style, just check out every weeks jewish press where the cartoonist painfully explains every facet of her joke). But youre right, showing the target on the cover itself would have made it easier for everyone to understand.
Not every interpretation is valid, and yours is not
Because...? What internal evidence defeats my interp?
The fact that not a single other person understood it to mean what you claim is pretty strong evidence that your version isn’t “successful”
Speculative. If we're dicussing what the cover means you have to tell me why my interp fails using information provided by the cover itself.
Not satire because no target is indicated??
http://books.google.com/books?
id...result#PPA70,M1
>OTD= Off the Derekh, Jews, particularly youth, who've left the Torah path after being raised observant.
It is a social problem plaguing Frum Jewish Society society.
semi-Refrocked Bray of Fundie | Homepage | 07.16.08 - 3:46 pm | # <
Hmmm... I wonder what exactly could be plaguing them so grievously that they're so desperate to wander OTD. Could it be that they've finally come to appreciate the falsity of the nonsense that they've been indoctrinated with?
Some are getting smart and not following in the same direction as the braying jackass.
ya..absolutely brilliant, They're Einsteins of theology and philosophy, each and everyone.
Also gentlemen, scholars and fine judges of whiskey women and ballplayers.
Not satire because no target is indicated??
http://books.google.com/books? id...result#PPA70,M1
DovBear | 07.16.08 - 4:27 pm | #
No one is claiming that there is NO target to this satire. Of course there is a target- right wing critics, which has been stated 1000 times in these comments. Its just that the target not being illustrated on the cover of the magazine does not disqualify it from being satire, as you had previously stated.
The new yorker cartoons are generally considered the gold standard of satire. If they say something is satire, I would defer to their authority. Even this cover; no one is claiming that it isn’t satire- just that its offensive and/or not funny.
Commenting by HaloScan
