majormonotone posted:

I decided to check our local paper, but it's a piece of poo poo and doesn't have any local cartoonists. We just get whatever garbage they decide to run from the Gannett Group (usually stuff from Phoenix, Louisville, Indianapolis, etc.) Here's some cartoons:



I liked this one. This is Steve Benson, who does cartoons for the Arizona Republic, the major newspaper in Phoenix.

Exclamation Marx posted:

Rorus Raz posted:

He contacted me on twitter wondering why we hated Rall so much

Space Cadet Omoly posted:

Now this is some high quality propaganda.

WarpedNaba posted:

drat, I wish I lived in a generation where you didn't have to choose between your morals and starvation.

Samuel Clemens posted:

Government spending? Higher taxes? Sure sounds like commie claptrap to me.

LaughMyselfTo posted:

So I was watching Foodfight! the other day, and is there any chance that Muir had a job on it for some time? It seemed very stylistically similar to DbD, particularly in its depiction of women.

MissEchelon posted:

Right, while I'm here I might as well post some other Fairfax Media cartoons. These are from The Age, which is a Melbourne-based paper.

They hold the honour of employing a cartoonist who must be blind and have two left feet in place of hands, Bruce Petty:













Wow, now that's what I call art. They really stand on their own, no explanation needed.

The Age is a big paper, so it does have other, not-as-lovely-at-drawing cartoonists. It also has a cartoonist who has terrible opinions. But for now, bask in the glory of Petty's high-effort work.

MissEchelon posted:

Right, while I'm here I might as well post some other Fairfax Media cartoons. These are from The Age, which is a Melbourne-based paper.

They hold the honour of employing a cartoonist who must be blind and have two left feet in place of hands, Bruce Petty:













Wow, now that's what I call art. They really stand on their own, no explanation needed.

The Age is a big paper, so it does have other, not-as-lovely-at-drawing cartoonists. It also has a cartoonist who has terrible opinions. But for now, bask in the glory of Petty's high-effort work.

Darkman Fanpage posted:

Eggs Benedict doesn't even get its name from Benedict Arnold.

I know right?

Rorus Raz posted:

I'm not an artist, so are a lot of these people dating themselves by showing cartoons with literal drawing boards? I imagine every cartoonist around the age of Bors (late 20s/early 30s) is using a tablet.

Just an observation. I have no idea if "traditional" methods are on their way out or not.

Brannock posted:

If there's actual job opportunities then perhaps more less-poo poo people would be inclined to go into this line of work.

The Gay Abortions are also selectively focused on a small slice of consistently terrible cartoonists. There's dozens of cartoonists who never even get noticed by this thread.

Rorus Raz posted:

Let me be clear that it's really cool that Patreon is serving as another way for artists to make a living. However, it's hard to get pumped about a transphobic, misogynist, homophobic and all-around rear end in a top hat dude making a living off his lovely Christian version of the Oatmeal when far better cartoonists are struggling to get even a few hundred a month.

Saint Sputnik posted:

Was surprised to hear you're only 25, because from your cartoons I get the feeling a lot of your influences are pretty old. Like Krazy Kat old, or early FBOFW. Am I close?

Rorus Raz posted:

Mister Beeg's style reminds me of the old newspaper comic "Broom Hilda"

Who's cartoonist is still alive, apparently.

TheGreenAvenger posted:

I'm surprised you're 25 because I'm reasonably sure we met on the keenspace forums 10 years ago. You must have been a BABY.

TheGreenAvenger posted:

Don't worry man, we were all little shits back then. I mean I was a little poo poo who was about 5 years older than you, but yeah.

Portals posted:

Holy poo poo I remember Keenspace. I posted terrible art there when I was like... ten. So about the same timeframe as you.

Your art style looks really familiar, I wonder if that's why.

Mister Beeg posted:

Robert Crumb drew this in light of the tragedy:

Rorus Raz posted:

I'm more shocked that Albert Uderzo is alive.

Unfunny Poster posted:

Isn't Plebcomics the person who got fired from their job (not making tumbler comics) because people decided the comics were offensive enough to contact her boss and stuff?

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."

Manuel Calavera posted:

Gilganixon posted:

This is quite cool, I thought you drew it for a minute.

quote:

Just under a year ago, I started a new gig that I was cautiously excited about : creating editorial comics for the Week in Review section of The New York Times. David Rees was going to write them and I was going to draw them. This seemed like an ideal partnership; David (creator of the satiric comic Get Your War On) has a great skill for walking the fine line between irony and sincerity, and is extremely funny as well. We both wanted to try to do new things with the political strip format, and bring metahumor to the Times.

Already, though, things were not as we’d been promised. The Times had approached David and then myself in April of 2013. After approving us, they told us their master plan: Brian McFadden, the resident comic artist, would be replaced by myself and David alternating with Lisa Hanawalt. This would be a part of the exciting revitalization of the Week in Review section. To that end, they told us to wait while their redesign proceeded.

By September, the redesign seemed to be finished; but the editor in charge decided that something as exciting as this new comic rotation couldn’t be unveiled in a dull month like September. Better to wait until… January! when it could be announced to the world with the appropriate fanfare and excitement.

So we waited seven months in all. And on January 20th, David & I created our first strip for the Times… which was printed with no fanfare or announcement or anything; we were simply dumped into an alternating slot with McFadden, because by then Lisa was simply too busy (drawing Bojack Horseman). The brilliant strategy of waiting all that time had backfired, because in fact it was pointlessly stupid.

Then there was the money. The New York Times- get this- refused to come up from the fee for one artist, which we were to split. We finally got them to come up a little, but only a little. These strips are done in a very short time period- basically between Wednesday night and Friday morning, and I stayed up all night for a couple fo them. We were going to be making very little money, but still, it was an opportunity to do good work, maybe make some statements on serious issues and have them be seen by people. And the Times still stands for something in peoples’s minds, some kind of editorial quality.

Of course, it didn’t work out at all; their nitpicking, antiquated style of editing got more oppressive until they were killing entire strips. And it’s quite clear they were refusing to print them because they didn’t understand them. It was like being edited by hobbits.

- See more at: http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/my-nyt-nightmare/#sthash.Icj47OvL.PuBb4PyK.dpuf

Rorus Raz posted:

Priggee said this day would come

colonel_korn posted:

So this mid-70's National Lampoon article by PJ O'Rourke entitled Foreigners around the World popped up on imgur. Kind of interesting to look at in light of Charlie Hebdo's content because it's more obvious (to me anyways) that the over-the-top racist jokes and cartoons are aimed at satirizing racist/xenophobic views in America. But I think that goes back to the idea of having to place satire in the context of the culture that's producing it, which is why Americans are struggling to interpret some of Charlie Hebdo's stuff.

vyelkin posted:

Two city employees in Hamilton were fired for bringing pot brownies to work at a public works site and sharing them with an unknowing coworker, who had an "adverse reaction" and had to be taken to the hospital (he recovered).