Got a minute? Tell wOw what you think.

A Friend Stopped By | 07/21/2008 1:30 pm

An Insider's Perspective on the 'New Yorker' Cover, by Liza Donnelly

By Liza Donnelly

Editor’s Note: Liza Donnelly’s cartoons are familiar to anyone who reads The New Yorker. This spring, Sex and Sensibility: Ten Women Examine the Lunacy of Modern Love … in 200 Cartoons, edited by Liza Donnelly, hit bookstores. She is also a friend of wowOwow.

Cartoonists are wired to inspect our culture. We look closely, examine behaviors and try to make readers see what’s going on through humor. Now, I speak as a New Yorker cartoonist — not a cover artist; that is slightly different. The cover of a recent New Yorker about Michelle and Barack Obama is not technically a New Yorker cartoon; it is a broad overview of an issue. Editorial cartoonists, whose work you see in the newspapers, get very specific and pointed on particular subjects. New Yorker cartoonists draw about life, people and, sometimes, politics.

Had the cover drawing been inside the magazine, it would have needed more — a caption perhaps. It was said that if one read the title inside of the cover, one would have understood the satire. That’s the problem. People don’t read the title of covers unless they are right there with the art. A cartoon as seen inside the magazine is very much intended to inspire a laugh or a humorous insight. An illustration is a drawing that goes with an article. A cover — most specifically a New Yorker cover — can do both. Make a comment and inspire a laugh as well as illustrate an idea. This one did those things, but it is not technically a “cartoon,” and thus needs to be seen less as a “joke” and more as a comment on something. Readers seem to be angry that it is not satirical enough, or is too much of an attack. I see this cover as a comment — a comment on how stupid stereotypes are.

obama cover_0.jpg

  

The art in this case was so strong, it created a knee-jerk response from viewers. It did its job in that it created dialogue about important issues: stereotypes, freedom of speech, the media, our government. Just like the whole primary season, these conversations help break down barriers. Humor is one of the most poignant tools for this end.

The imagery of this cover appears to offend many people — patriots, Muslims, blacks. The only group I think that was avoided was women (and white men, of course). Michelle looks strong in this, albeit strong in an unfortunate stereotype. I don’t condone any of these stereotypes, but they are out there, and this cover forces us to talk about them. Because they are on the cover of a magazine known for its liberal but balanced coverage, this cover can be seen as a comment, not an opinion.

That’s what good humor is: comment on society. An image can take on a life of its own.

Read more about: Liza Donnelly, News, Obama, Politics, The New Yorker
You might also like:

92 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Babette dYveine

The problem with the cover is that it reinforces prejudices. Many people considered Archie Bunker a role model, not realizing he was a “satire.”

What if the cover had been printed on the National Review, rather than the New Yorker?

By Babette dYveine on 07/21/2008 1:11 pm
Maurine H

Liza - I wish I could agree with your justification of the intent of this cover, but I simply cannot. I take exception to your statement that “the only group…avoided was women”, since, as a woman and a mother, I found the depiction of Michelle Obama (the mother of two daughters) to be one of the most offensive aspects of the cover. I remember the days when Patti Hearst’s image, with a shotgun in her hand, was splashed all over the news, on tee-shirts and hats. It was as disgusting then as this image of Ms. Obama is now. Aside from every other destructive aspect of this piece of “artistic” trash, the cartoon of Michelle Obama, an intelligent and gracious woman who may well become this country’s next First Lady, is a sly attempt to undermine her femininity and her accomplishments. I don’t care what cartoonists say or how much The New Yorker rationializes its motives, the message is loud and clear. If you really believe that this cover forces any kind if constructive conversation, I think you aren’t really listening to what’s going on out here in America. I have heard people in my community say “The New Yorker got it right.” They see no satire in the cover. They think their suspicions about the Obamas have been justified by a magazine published in New York. There is no interest in dialogue.

By Maurine H on 07/21/2008 1:12 pm
Emcye Edwards

So well put, Maurine.
W.H. Auden: “Art is clear thinking about mixed feelings.”
Satire is the opposite: clear disagreement or opposition inferred by ridicule.
That’s where the confusion comes in.
Are they with him or a’gin him?

If media in general functioned at a consistently high standard and wasn’t owned or subverted by suspect interests, people might have some kind of compass - to get where this is illustration coming from.

So many jokes about Barach Obama’s lack of a sense of humor. I can see how his situation would make anyone think twice about hanging loose. There was a time when you could see how subtle his humor is. Back in 2005, he joked around on NPR.
A president with real wit and a clear sense of irony - is there hope?
http://www.npr.org/programs/waitwait/archrndwn/2005/aug/050806.waitwait….

By Emcye Edwards on 07/21/2008 2:32 pm
DeBúrca obj

Spot on Emcye.

By DeBúrca obj on 07/21/2008 4:50 pm
Frank Peterson

Well done as usual Maurine—Satire my butt—I know satire and that wasn’t it by a long shot-frankly it was a cheap shot no matter the justification for it and a black woman on the cover with an AK 47 on her shoulder—right! I get it—satire Bullshit i! pardon my language but that just burns me.

By Frank Peterson on 07/21/2008 3:02 pm
Zera Lee

This reminds me of something Johnny Carson once said about bad jokes: “If you have to explain it, it didn’t work.”

I also took offense at the use of Norman Rockwell type artwork. It was a stain on someone elses commentary style.

What kind of reaction would there be if it had been Ann Coulter/Rush Limbaugh on a Fox News set? At some point, you just get tired of all the divisiveness.

By Zera Lee on 07/21/2008 3:46 pm
Frank Peterson

Zera: Johnnie was very astute.

By Frank Peterson on 07/21/2008 4:29 pm
Maurine H

Thanks, Frank and Emcye. The New Yorker seems to be turning itself inside out trying to rationalize its sickening “satire”, and that, of course, means it just didn’t play. Frank, I feel the same way you do about the seeing Ms. Obama depicted as a terrorist, and so do my black AND white women friends. Most of the rest of the world sees the USA as an unsafe, violent country. No wonder!

By Maurine H on 07/21/2008 5:04 pm
mary lou s

mo, i would love to join you in this. but i think 1) we know where the new yorker stands 2) it is over the top 3) it is satire. do you agree with stephen colbert in all his statements? i rest my case

fellow lily-belly, mary lou

By mary lou s on 07/21/2008 9:06 pm
mary lou s

the title of this cover, which i forget, published in red on the cover may have helped.

By mary lou s on 07/21/2008 9:08 pm
Maurine H

Mary Lou Lily-belly - I never expect to be agreed with (although I must admit a sneaky little desire for it), but it’s the comments I’m hearing from within my community that are telling me that the cover has provided fuel for the fire. Most of the speakers are arch-conservatives, college-educated (for whatever it’s worth), financially secure, some former military. They point to the NY cover as examples of “what’s really happening in America…the ‘takeover’ by ‘people like Obama” and on and on and on. No I don’t always agree with Colbert, but he is a comedic persona and doesn’t take himself seriously. From the way it has been trying to justify this cover, I think The New Yorker takes itself quite seriously and considers itself to be an elitist publication. Bollix.

By Maurine H on 07/22/2008 12:29 am
Marjorie C.

Liza: “Michelle looks strong in this, …”

Strong in a leg-crossed, and embarassed or shy way. Very girlish. I think the real Michelle is stronger than this depiction depicts.

Like poetry, everyone brings their own experience to the piece.

I think Ryan Lizza’s article was in this issue, too. Makes one wonder where The New Yorker is heading with all this, but I’m glad to see it.

By Marjorie C. on 07/21/2008 1:21 pm
Lorraine Bates

Liza, I saw the cover in the way you describe its purpose. Unfortunately, it did create, as you said, a “knee-jerk response” from the majority, and that should have been considered before publishing it. The meaning got lost in the controversy.

By Lorraine Bates on 07/21/2008 1:22 pm
Susan B

That’s exactly it, Lorraine. There once was a time when only the readers of the The New Yorker would have seen and understood the intended satire and message of that cover, but those days are gone. In the future, more caution will need to be exercised on the editorial side. It’s the great homogenizing of America journalism, and I think it’s sad, but it’s the times we live in. While plenty of satire has the potential to go over most people’s heads, these days, it ends up slapping them in the face.

By Susan B on 07/21/2008 7:26 pm
No Way-No How -No McCain

The cover is not divorced from the post 911 context of programatic division and hate in a gun-mad culture.

If it is not offensive then let the next cover illustration be of Bush, Cheney and the rest of their NeoCon crew, Halliburton and Exxon execs included, throwing a lavish party on top of flag draped coffins with money trees and fountains and stuffed pockets all around.

The New Yorker went over the top and the cover will be used by the deranged to feed their shared delusions.

By No Way-No How -No McCain on 07/21/2008 1:23 pm
1234567next ›last »