Let me begin by saying that I will vote for Obama. It’s pretty simple really. But most of you probably knew that. However, as much as I support him for president, I think it’s important to keep in perspective that he is a politician, and therefore an open target.
The recent cover of Obama and Michele on the cover of The New Yorker doesn’t vilify their character or persons, as much as it pokes fun at those paranoid psychos that actually espouse views that Obama is “un-American,” –whatever that means, and that he’s a flag-burning extremist (Muslim or otherwise) with nefarious plans for office.
However, I find it equally galling that because so many people see in Obama a hope for a better tomorrow, that he is somehow exempt from political cartooning.
Was the picture offensive or in poor taste? Perhaps. But really isn’t that the role of the artist—to upend thoughts and challenge the statue quo—and in doing so, the cartoonist especially is participating in a time-honored, deeply American tradition, the lampooning of leaders lest these same leaders forget that they too (for all their power) are ultimately only citizens.
1 comment:
i actually really found the fact that the magazine used the picture as its cover. I think the artist has every right to make commentary on society in whatever way he or she sees fit, but I really found it an offensive article in the sense that sadly, a good number of Americans DO feel this way about Obama, and I think that it isn't the New Yorker's place to comment on that either way as their cover art. Meaning, I don't think the New Yorker needs to go left or right on the cover -- I sued to subscribe to that magazine, and while it definitely leans to the left, I don't think it is the most liberal mag out there, so that is why the cover is confusing to me. If it were either an all-left or all-right magazine, I think that I would understand more the point trying to be made, but coming from the New Yorker, I just think they missed the mark.
Post a Comment