Mordiceius posted:

quote:

I love Joe Sacco's work, but a clear thinking satirist he is most definitely not. He obviously put a lot of effort into this piece and manages to say very little. Except that offensive cartoons are... duh... offensive, when removed from context, or when interpreted differently. OK. Gee, thanks for that insight, Joe.
The Guardian would have been better off seeking out a cartoonist who actually makes political cartoons, rather than someone who clearly neither understands them nor supports them as a legitimate expression of opinion.

(...)

Hey, I'll be the first to ridicule lousy political cartoons, of which there are plenty, especially here in the US where the genre has been gutted, downsized and killed by corporate media. That's not the case everywhere, however, and political cartoons are vibrant and important in other countries. Obviously, Sacco knows absolutely nothing of this.

I would further make the argument that Hebdo occasionally crossed the line of taste and danced, even ironically, which is always open to interpretation, along the edge of racist caricature. But I don't think "blasphemous" cartoons are "vapid", as Sacco states here. I think they're very important, in fact. So he gets a big "gently caress you" from me over that.

You'll note he makes no mention of, say, Arab cartoons which frequently depict Jews as baby-eating vampires. For a guy who prides himself on meticulous research, he really booted this one.

quote:

In Panel Five of his victim-blaming "On Satire" strip, Joe Sacco points out that Charlie Hebdo fired a staffer over anti-semitism. When I read this the first time, I thought that Sacco was noting that the mag had their limits and would self-censor a staffer who went too far. Now, after a second reading, I'm pretty sure that Sacco's accusing Charlie Hebdo of having a double standard; firing a staffer for anti-semitism while encouraging anti-muslim content. I feel like I've seen enough Jews caricatured on the cover of Charlie Hebdo to know that this is bullshit. Now, I haven't surveyed all the covers, and it's certainly possible that CH lampooned Muslims a little harder than it did Jews, but if this is the case I imagine it has a little something to do with their offices being firebombed by jihadists in 2011.

(...)

More thoughts on Sacco's "On Satire." I think the strip makes a lot of very dubious points.
.
Panel 5, (citing Charlie Hebdo's firing of a staffer over anti-semitic content) seems to hint that the mag has a double standard. Anyone who's spent five minutes googling Charlie Hebdo covers could tell you that Jews caught their share of the mag's venom. If Charlie Hebdo seemed to lampoon Muslims harder than other subjects, I suggest it might have something to do with the siege mentality that sets in after jihadis firebomb your office.
.
Sacco's two forays into hate speech cartooning, (the grotesque drawings of a Black man and a Jew in Panels 4 and 6) strike me as considerably more offensive than what I've seen on the covers of Charlie Hebdo. Sacco sets up two repulsive straw men that lack any of the subtlety or wit of the publication he's attacking.
.
Sacco implies in Panel 9 that Muslims generally are unable to laugh off the images in Charlie Hebdo. I suspect that the vast majority of muslims, (if they're aware of the magazine at all) don't give a poo poo. To generalize that anger across all of Muslimdom is a clumsy mistake I'm surprised to see Sacco make.
.
Sacco's ultimate point appears to be that Muslim rage stems from far more than just some cartoons. Panel 9's depiction of Abu Ghraib torture expands Muslim grievances to include the Iraq invasion, followed by a jab at Israel in the last panel. It's an interesting jab, since the line "let us drive them into the sea," (which I believe Sacco is using ironically) is a paraphrase of an infamous Nasser quote. Now, if it were true that these real world grievances inspired the attack on the Charlie Hebdo staff, it might make the atrocity slightly more understandable. However, I've heard nothing in the news that indicates that the attack was anything more than revenge for a slur on the prophet's honor, which any civilized person would rightly see as an irrational, barbaric act.
.
Even the title seems ill-chosen. You'd think a strip called "On Satire" would have something to say about satire. A better title would be: "On Free Speech, And Why I Oppose It."

Mister Beeg posted:

Some of the cartoonists REALLY didn't like the Sacco cartoon. Some I found on Facebook:

From Derf:


From Danny Hellman (the guy Ted Rall sued years ago)

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

2

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

3

quote:

You'll note he makes no mention of, say, Arab cartoons which frequently depict Jews as baby-eating vampires.

CROWS EVERYWHERE posted:

JRROSE!


TRANS- PORT -TATION Oh well, it's comforting knowing that the US has laid off all its proofreaders too.

Kugyou no Tenshi posted:

They were probably labeled by the Education guy with the "HEP" sign.

Dimebags Brain posted:

Surprise! Political cartoonists fail to understand nuance. "Should be titled 'On Free Speech and Why I Oppose It'". Jesus Christ.

Munin posted:

Not to rehash an old debate but I do think Sacco has missed the point of l'Hebdo and its general editorial stance. That's what I read in that cartoon. I agree with his sentiment but it is mis-aimed.

It makes me think of the medium piece posted earlier which again had some good points but also a lot of dreck, more than Sacco's cartoon for sure. Interestingly it did also contain the same talking point about the writer sacked for anti-semitism and I'm curious if Sacco read it.

[edit] This is the article I was referring to: https://medium.com/@asgharbukhari/charlie-hebdo-this-attack-was-nothing-to-do-with-free-speech-it-was-about-war-26aff1c3e998

Re-reading it I also should not have said dreck though I again think it is misrepresenting the spirit behind the publication and cartoon. I agree with a lot of its general thrust.

Munin posted:

Not to rehash an old debate

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

Dimebags Brain posted:

Sacco gets the point of Hebdo. He's questioning whether using inherently racist caricature for 'satire' is ok even when it's within context that supposedly makes it "not racist".

Munin posted:

Anyway, I fundamentally disagree with that framing. Satire and cartoons is the perfect way to disarm these caricatures. Satire's inherent purpose is to put common myths up for ridicule and reveal their inherent absurdity. A good cartoon can make a statement look ridiculous at a glance. One of the best ways of doing that is to show the statement shorn of any attempted embellishments. The cartoon of the French minister was a very successful version of that (given you knew what it was actually about), but obviously a picture of a racist caricature. You can also exaggerate the caricature until its inherent absurdity becomes apparent. The Boko Haram women cartoon would be an example of that. Again it is crucially reliant on context. Shorn of context it is like that Obama quote from the U.N. speech, which I am sure will inflame a significant number of people.

To go back to the cultural context thing again, as mentioned French satire is more based on exaggeration of pushing a caricature to grotesque extremes. One of the historical touchstones of French satire is Rabelais ("Gargantua and Pantagruel") which is all about putting things on a different scale. US and UK cartoons tend to be focused on the juxtaposition of symbols, clever wordplay or the likes and tends to be earnest. Most exaggerations that do crop up in US cartoons are sincere at heart rather than the thing which is supposed to draw ridicule (see many right wing cartoonist). Just to quickly pull out the common context in each language, if you look at Wikipedia the English entry on "Satire" focuses on irony, sarcasm and wit whereas the French article focuses on how satire is used to render things ridiculous through either diminution or exaggeration. The main use of juxtaposition is to bring the high low.

Ultimately, it is about robbing these symbols of their power by showing exactly how absurd they are and turn them from common wisdom to an obviously ridiculous prejudice.

Rorus Raz posted:

Do we really have any room to talk about dated references when we can't get enough of a donkey from a five-year-old cartoon?

Hitler B. Natural posted:

Pants donkey is that old? Sweet Jesus are we ever pissing our lives away.

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

colonel_korn posted:

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

1

Smudgie Buggler posted:

Have an exceptionally good article on Charlie Hebdo containing a very fair and informed assessment of its particular brand of satire from an Anglophonic perspective.

Kurtofan posted:

How was CH under Val? The guy latter worked for Sarkozy as president of France Inter, if I remember correctly, very pro Israel as well, apparently.

It just seems like a very odd fit for what is a leftist satirical magazine.

Jedit posted:

I honestly don't know - I was only filling out what Sacco either didn't bother to look up or omitted because it didn't fit his narrative. Being left wing doesn't exempt you from being a hatemonger, though.

Munin posted:

Anyway, I fundamentally disagree with that framing. Satire and cartoons is the perfect way to disarm these caricatures. Satire's inherent purpose is to put common myths up for ridicule and reveal their inherent absurdity. A good cartoon can make a statement look ridiculous at a glance. One of the best ways of doing that is to show the statement shorn of any attempted embellishments. The cartoon of the French minister was a very successful version of that (given you knew what it was actually about), but obviously a picture of a racist caricature. You can also exaggerate the caricature until its inherent absurdity becomes apparent. The Boko Haram women cartoon would be an example of that. Again it is crucially reliant on context. Shorn of context it is like that Obama quote from the U.N. speech, which I am sure will inflame a significant number of people.

To go back to the cultural context thing again, as mentioned French satire is more based on exaggeration of pushing a caricature to grotesque extremes. One of the historical touchstones of French satire is Rabelais ("Gargantua and Pantagruel") which is all about putting things on a different scale. US and UK cartoons tend to be focused on the juxtaposition of symbols, clever wordplay or the likes and tends to be earnest. Most exaggerations that do crop up in US cartoons are sincere at heart rather than the thing which is supposed to draw ridicule (see many right wing cartoonist). Just to quickly pull out the common context in each language, if you look at Wikipedia the English entry on "Satire" focuses on irony, sarcasm and wit whereas the French article focuses on how satire is used to render things ridiculous through either diminution or exaggeration. The main use of juxtaposition is to bring the high low.

Ultimately, it is about robbing these symbols of their power by showing exactly how absurd they are and turn them from common wisdom to an obviously ridiculous prejudice.

Volkerball posted:

In a general sense I agree, but I don't think it applies to this specific case. What "symbol" is attacked by drawing caricatures of Mohammed? It's basically just the institution that says you aren't supposed to do that, which is how many Muslims interpret Islam. None of their Mohammed cartoons did anything to point at the absurdity of killing people over comics, and he wasn't even an essential character in some of them. There was one take they did on a concept that a few cartoons had used that's a good example. Jihadi John holding someone and demanding they convert to Islam, and the person tells him "you first." The only difference with Charlie's cartoon was that the person saying "you first" was Mohammed. Doing that added nothing to the comic and took away so much. There was another one that had Mohammed leading a child by the hand in what I suppose is a reference to pedophilia, which wow, such necessary, biting social commentary. It's more equivalent to a radio shock jock going on a tirade because "I'm just saying what we're all thinking" when they know they can't get in trouble for it because free speech. I've spoken to Muslims who are strongly against extremists and hate them with a passion, and those people not liking the cartoons says something to me. When your "satire" is applauded by next to nobody in the target group, instead met with varying degrees of "what an insensitive, bullshit thing to do," it's bad satire. This didn't do anything to challenge the wall dividing the Muslim world from the western world. It was just another brick.

Xander77 posted:

I'm reminded of how scornfully "just because you have the right doesn't mean you have to exercise it" was received just a few years ago.

El Scotch posted:

And other things