Cartoons

[mummymonkey]

Please keep the thread to the specific topic which is - What makes a good cartoon, and are the Mohammed cartoons any good.

Many commentators have dismissed the cartoons as badly drawn, not funny, poor quality etc and used this as part of their reasoning as to why they should not be published.

Over the years cartoons have been used in many different ways, from childrens comedy to offensive propaganda. Cartoons use a variety of methods including grotesque characterisation, exaggeration and plain insults to get their message across. In most there is an element of humour, usually at someone's expense

If the purpose of these cartoons was to raise awareness of an issue, or to point out absurdities and double standards then they have surely done so in spades.

Does that make them good cartoons?

 

[Johnny Pixels]

I noticed that several people have kind of downplayed them as not that funny, not that well drawn in an attempt to dismiss them.

I think to make a cartoon good, it has to acheive what it sets out to do. For instance, the purpose of Road Runner is to make people laugh. It doesn't matter what it looks like, or how well drawn it is, as long as it makes people laugh. In Road Runner the jokes are very slapstick and physical, especially as Wile Coyote virtually never speaks. As a result its aesthetics are not that important. As a cartoon it is good, as art, it may not be.

With the Mohammed cartoons, each artist has set out with different aims, as the request was for pictures of Mohammed I believe. The one of the prophet leading his donkey is well drawn and depicts a view of Mohammed, as a result I would say it is a good cartoon, and a good piece of art.

The "stop, we've run out of virgins" cartoon is less artistic, but it makes the point that suicide bombers can believe they're going to heaven to be rewarded. The cartoon possibly makes the point that things are out of hand. As a cartoon it makes a point and so it is good, but it is not a good piece of art.

I have a collection of cartoons drawn in my university lecture notes. None of them are artistically good, but they brought a smile to the girl sitting next to me, so it that sense, they are good cartoons.

Cartoons are good and bad depending on the standards by which you judge them. To judge political cartoons on their artistic merit misses the point, in the same way as if you dismissed the Mona Lisa because it makes no comment on human rights.

 

[richardm]

Many commentators have dismissed the cartoons as badly drawn, not funny, poor quality etc and used this as part of their reasoning as to why they should not be published.

I wonder if those same commentators would approve of the cartoons if they were well drawn?

In fact, I think the cartoons are not bad efforts at all. At least a couple of them are cartoons in almost the classic sense, i.e. not supposed to be funny but just straightforward depictions.

I'd say their quality was certainly on a par with most of the daily topical panels drawn in national newspapers.

I reckon that the purpose of a cartoon is not to make you think "That's a good picture", but to make you think about the subject - full stop. In a sense they've done this, but perhaps in another sense they haven't yet, because what most non-muslim people are thinking is "What a fuss about nothing", whereas most of the rioting muslims aren't thinking at all (and in fact probably haven't even seen what they're rioting about). Perhaps when the initial fuss dies down then people will be able to think more clearly about it. "Why do Westerners associate Islam with violence?" is the question that should, I think, be asked by Muslims, and of course it's laughable to even ask that question while the embassies are still on fire. But most of the cartoons have violent connotations, so it's a question that they should investigate.

Incidentally I've read somewhere - here? can't remember - that the proscription on drawing Mohammed is not one shared by all Muslim sects. So perhaps the wider population might like to dissociate themselves further from that. Or perhaps I just dreamed that bit.

 

[webfusion]

A stick-figure would have brought the same results -- especially since the muslim outrage is not directed at them, per-se, but at the idea of representing muhammed AT ALL.

Looking at the pictures, they are OK.
Obviously, they failed on a certain level, considering their original intent:
To become part of the collection of drawings in the book by Danish author Kåre Bluitgen. None of them did.
http://www.exilen.org/debatt/read.php?f=17&i=195024&t=195024

 

[epepke]

A link to the cartoons would be nice. Here's one, but they're in low resolution:

http://epaper.jp.dk/30-09-2005/demo/JP_04-03.html

My opinions are:

Far top, left (the one with the face and the crescent and star): I like this one. I'm not sure about the color of the crescent and star, but it's fairly well drawn, if a bit on the minimalist side.

Far top, middle-right (the one with the bomb on the head): There's too much ink in that drawing.

Far top, right (the skinny one): A bit goofy, but the halo made of crescents (or are they horns?) is a nice touch.

Left, slightly down: A good political cartoon, making fun of the editor (I presume) doing a PR stunt.

Middle, above the text: Kind of funny, a meta-cartoon.

Left of text, top: An editorial cartoon in the American standard. Kind of funny.

Right of text, top: Not very good at all.

Left of text, bottom: A bit dense. Not sure what the bar over the eyes is supposed to be about. And that would be a ridiculous way to hold a sword.

Right of text, bottom: Rough, but with interesting forced perspective. Would be good in a children's book.

Below text, left: A meta-cartoon, a bit silly.

Below text, middle: Another meta-cartoon, somewhat in the Playboy style. Not bad, and with a good point.

Below text, right: My favorite of the bunch. Another meta-cartoon, rather perspicatious, well drawn, and similar to many of the cartoons that have been made after the recent incedents.

I don't have a link to the three additions the Danish Muslim group decided to include, but if you've seen them,

Left: Badly drawn. I can't even see the point.

Middle: This isn't a cartoon. It's a degraded image of a guy giving a talk at a pig festival. It has nothing to do with Mohammed.

Right: Again, not a cartoon, and badly degraded. It seems to be a photoshop of a dog or something mounting someone or something. Too degraded actually to tell.

 

[BPSCG]

Quality-wise, I don't find them very impressive, if that's the best the Muslim world has to offer. Compare with anything by, say, Michael Ramirez (admittedly, a very high standard).

A good political cartoon makes the observer think about the issue. Frankly, I don't see what a cartoon of Ariel Sharon drinking blood is supposed to make one think about.

 

[epepke]

A stick-figure would have brought the same results -- especially since the muslim outrage is not directed at them, per-se, but at the idea of representing muhammed AT ALL.

Maybe, maybe not.

I've learned in the past couple of days that absolute prohibitions of images of Mohammed are limited to some Sunni sects, although Sunnis have commissioned miniatures of Mohammed. There are images of Mohammed in manuscripts of the Hadith.

Furthermore, the original publication, on 30 September 2005, did not cause much of a stir. I will go out on a (rather strong IMO) limb to suggest that it was the inclusion of the spurious images, including the French Pig-Boy, by a Danish Muslim group that was the real proximate cause of the extent of the violence.

 

[Renfield]

I thought the "stop, we're out of virgins" one wasn't too bad.

 

[HeyLeroy]

(moved to avoid derail)

 

[Ryokan]

I thought the "stop, we're out of virgins" one wasn't too bad.

I liked the 'Stop, it's just a silly drawing from an infidel Southern Dane' best, especially considering the response to the drawings