One other name to add to the list, Stan Freberg.
1
The drawings behind brutal murders at Charlie Hebdo were simply a pretext.
The real motivation was to "sharpen the contradictions"; that is, cause the repression and racism against the French N. African (and Muslims across Europe) to increase in order to augment recruiting.
A little like 9/11 was to get the US to move militarily in order to incite more resistance to our presence in the region.
https://soundcloud.com/wbez-worldview/extremism-and-motivations-of-suspe...
The real motivation was to "sharpen the contradictions"; that is, cause the repression and racism against the French N. African (and Muslims across Europe) to increase in order to augment recruiting.
A little like 9/11 was to get the US to move militarily in order to incite more resistance to our presence in the region.
https://soundcloud.com/wbez-worldview/extremism-and-motivations-of-suspe...
1
Tim Kreider, many thanks from Paris. Here, we have deeply in mind the words of Voltaire, my bad translation : "I disagree with your thinking, but I would die so that you could say what you think".
No, it's not French 911, as I could read in US newspapers. It's only Voltaire's country, for which freedom of speech is a symbol and a high value. They shoot this symbol.
People stand up for :
- freedom, and freedom of speech
- refusal to be divised, we are a nation, not french vs muslims vs jews.
No, it's not French 911, as I could read in US newspapers. It's only Voltaire's country, for which freedom of speech is a symbol and a high value. They shoot this symbol.
People stand up for :
- freedom, and freedom of speech
- refusal to be divised, we are a nation, not french vs muslims vs jews.
5
Free speech, in all its non-violent manifestations, is sacrosanct. But this precious Constitutional right is interwoven with moral responsibilities. Requirements to comply with standards of discourse have long been legally or morally enforced.
In Germany, for example, certain anti-Islamic and anti-Semitic comments are punishable by law. Such comments are common and legally allowed - respectively - in the United States and Muslim countries. Publications and TV programs unsuitable for minors are strongly regulated in the U.S. but less so in Europe. The bottom line is, while free speech is and should be cherished, even the most liberal societies do impose legal or moral responsibilities on those exercising this right.
Satirists are not exempted from their own moral obligations to society. In fact, their selective targeting of persons or events for humiliation or ridicule is a tacit acknowledgment of their limits. Most satirists in the West are wise to avoid insulting Jews, Blacks, victims of the Holocaust and those of slavery. Their choice to exempt certain people and events from mockery is morally right and praiseworthy.
But it does not stop them from picking on easier targets like Prophet Mohammed. I am not a Muslim; even though I strongly defend the legal right of cartoonists to mock him, I am disgusted by their decision. Tim Kreider concludes by saying "no one will be spared," yet those in his profession do spare some.
In Germany, for example, certain anti-Islamic and anti-Semitic comments are punishable by law. Such comments are common and legally allowed - respectively - in the United States and Muslim countries. Publications and TV programs unsuitable for minors are strongly regulated in the U.S. but less so in Europe. The bottom line is, while free speech is and should be cherished, even the most liberal societies do impose legal or moral responsibilities on those exercising this right.
Satirists are not exempted from their own moral obligations to society. In fact, their selective targeting of persons or events for humiliation or ridicule is a tacit acknowledgment of their limits. Most satirists in the West are wise to avoid insulting Jews, Blacks, victims of the Holocaust and those of slavery. Their choice to exempt certain people and events from mockery is morally right and praiseworthy.
But it does not stop them from picking on easier targets like Prophet Mohammed. I am not a Muslim; even though I strongly defend the legal right of cartoonists to mock him, I am disgusted by their decision. Tim Kreider concludes by saying "no one will be spared," yet those in his profession do spare some.
5
Two thoughts that come to my mind: The explanation after 9/11 was that "they" weren't free like we are and they hated us for it. But freedom to do what? To go to bad movies? To binge on serial TV shows and maw on popcorn? To comment indignantly on-line? Thats it? Somehow comparing ours to a society that takes it's religious prophet seriously enough that defamation warrants murder doesn't make me feel a vast sense of superiority. Can't advocate the killing part but the focus seems more significant. Do we all now accept the 'they hate us for our freedom' line?
Second,there are many things that would offend us in our society, we're wrong to think we're above umbrage. Crimes against women, children and minorities deeply offend us and that's for the good, I think, it means that there are some things that we still care about.
Second,there are many things that would offend us in our society, we're wrong to think we're above umbrage. Crimes against women, children and minorities deeply offend us and that's for the good, I think, it means that there are some things that we still care about.
2
Governments fear the word and art far more than bullets Violence they can handle contempt not so much...
3
What would be the level of outrage if a paper in this country started to publish extraordinarily offensive, even obscene, cartoons aimed at Jews or African-Americans?
4
Regarding: "Any art that challenges its fundamental assumptions, its inevitability and rightness, is either ignored, so the artist has to tend bar or learn graphic design, or, if it becomes successful, lavishly rewarded and painlessly welcomed into the system it criticized."
Alas, there's a well-trod 3rd path, where the artist, composer or author becomes a tenured faculty member at some college and, therefore, has the financial wherewithal able to inflict themselves on innocent passers by for the next 50 years.
Alas, there's a well-trod 3rd path, where the artist, composer or author becomes a tenured faculty member at some college and, therefore, has the financial wherewithal able to inflict themselves on innocent passers by for the next 50 years.
3
The arts have the inherent capacity "to speak truth to power." May this ability never be reduced its use never be marginalized.
"It is a reminder that art is not a frivolous diversion, not just a product or “content.” It is still alive and dangerous, and still hated and feared by those most deserving of our mockery."
Art is never dangerous. What's dangerous is some people's reactions to it.
Art is never dangerous. What's dangerous is some people's reactions to it.
3
Powerful, tragic words. Thank you.
1
jazz and post mordernism were used in the anti USSR efforts by the USA.
Art is not neutral.
Art is not neutral.
1
The depictions of G W Bush as a "dung- flinging chimpanzee" and the Atlanta Journal cartoonist Mike Luckovich's caricature of him as a teeny weeny chimp would most certainly be condemned as disrespect if used in connection with the current US president. The noted Atlanta cartoonist Luckovich delights in depicting as racist the elderly white readers of the only newspaper in town, yet it was Luckovich himself who wrote a whiny letter to the opinion section of his ow newspaper complaining that a couple of young Black teens frightened him and his children by sitting too close to them in a local park.
2
"No one will be spared." - Really? Ok, I defy you to break some taboo in your own political circle. You work for the New York times? What about a cartoon lampooning those who think that women crying rape never lie and must always be believed. I guarantee you you'll either be fired the same day, or when the twitter outrage and the change.org petition hits.
2
It may be worthwhile to remember that Islam is 623 years younger than Christianity - and younger, still, than Judaism. And to recall what "good" Christians were doing at that time to those who were deemed (by them) to be either infidels, apostates or blasphemers.
4
In his recent NY Times piece concerning Charlie Hebdo, Russ Douthat argued that we should blaspheme to preserve the right to blaspheme. And the more that this right is challenge, the more we must blaspheme.
But this is nothing more than a simple circularity that completely leaves out the thought that blasphemy should serve a constructive purpose more than just preserving the right to blaspheme.
Constructive purposes that outrageous expressions might serve to illustrate--perhaps through humor or shock--are things like the absurdities, immoralities or debilitations that certain beliefs give rise.
Objectionable outrageous expressions versus acceptable outrageous expressions can be distinguished by whether some constructive criticism can be detected in the art or writing rather than it being merely a ridiculing, grotesque characterization of something that particular people hold sacred. Art and literature are sufficiently flexible that it cannot be fairly claimed that ridiculing shock necessarily will be artistically compromised if it has to contain even a modicum of unambiguous constructive criticism
Serrano’s “Piss Christ” 1987 photograph is an example of art without a hint of redeeming value. Charlie Hebdo’s depiction of Mohammed with sexual innuendos, rather than, say, associated with death and destruction, falls into the same category. They represent an exercise of artists’ puerile, self-indulgent needs at the cost of useless social offense and destructive backlash.
But this is nothing more than a simple circularity that completely leaves out the thought that blasphemy should serve a constructive purpose more than just preserving the right to blaspheme.
Constructive purposes that outrageous expressions might serve to illustrate--perhaps through humor or shock--are things like the absurdities, immoralities or debilitations that certain beliefs give rise.
Objectionable outrageous expressions versus acceptable outrageous expressions can be distinguished by whether some constructive criticism can be detected in the art or writing rather than it being merely a ridiculing, grotesque characterization of something that particular people hold sacred. Art and literature are sufficiently flexible that it cannot be fairly claimed that ridiculing shock necessarily will be artistically compromised if it has to contain even a modicum of unambiguous constructive criticism
Serrano’s “Piss Christ” 1987 photograph is an example of art without a hint of redeeming value. Charlie Hebdo’s depiction of Mohammed with sexual innuendos, rather than, say, associated with death and destruction, falls into the same category. They represent an exercise of artists’ puerile, self-indulgent needs at the cost of useless social offense and destructive backlash.
3
• "And yet there is also occasion for pride in it, the kind of somber pride any soldier is entitled to feel in a comrade’s sacrifice. It is a reminder that art is not a frivolous diversion, not just a product or 'content.' It is still alive and dangerous, and still hated and feared by those most deserving of our mockery."
KUDOS, Mt. Kreider!!! Well put.
CHARLIE HEBDO IS DEAD! shouted the assassins during their rampage on Wednesday. They sought to die as "martyrs" and live eternally in Paradise enjoying romps with their 72 earned virgins.
As a non-believer, I don't believe so. Saïd and Chérif Kouachi are DEAD. Amedy Coulibaly is DEAD.
One thing I do know with certainty: Thanks to them, Jean Cabut (Cabu), Bernard Verlhac (Tignous), Georges Wolinski and Stéphane Charbonnier (Charb) live eternal in History and in Art.
They are Triumphant. THEIR war is over and won!
"So now he occupies a niche, like most artists worth remembering, based on ... work that nevertheless still speaks to us."
~ MICHAEL KIMMELMAN
NYTimes Art and Architecture Critic
KUDOS, Mt. Kreider!!! Well put.
CHARLIE HEBDO IS DEAD! shouted the assassins during their rampage on Wednesday. They sought to die as "martyrs" and live eternally in Paradise enjoying romps with their 72 earned virgins.
As a non-believer, I don't believe so. Saïd and Chérif Kouachi are DEAD. Amedy Coulibaly is DEAD.
One thing I do know with certainty: Thanks to them, Jean Cabut (Cabu), Bernard Verlhac (Tignous), Georges Wolinski and Stéphane Charbonnier (Charb) live eternal in History and in Art.
They are Triumphant. THEIR war is over and won!
"So now he occupies a niche, like most artists worth remembering, based on ... work that nevertheless still speaks to us."
~ MICHAEL KIMMELMAN
NYTimes Art and Architecture Critic
3
I don't think this was about cartoons. I think it was about hate-mongers and the power they can generate by lying to angry young men. THAT is what we need to fight, and we start with the hate-mongering liars in our own midst.
3
In America, it's the Christian Right who get angry!
2
The New Yorker cartoon of the Obamas as "Muslims" was shocking to me!
1
wonderful essay....there was a time when fiction was feared more than non fiction.....Harold Bloom speaking of Christians wrote that they worship a fictional character. And to think people , pencil pushers, were murdered over a cartoon!
I look forward to your cartoons....
I look forward to your cartoons....
Yet art is political, here in the US as elsewhere, even if we don't massacre people as a result of it. Then Mayor Giuliani cut the budget of the Brooklyn Museum of Art when it arranged an exhibit of Chris Ofili's elephant dung picture of the Virgin Mary. The National Endowment for the Arts has faced frequent and extended controversies over its funding of controversial artists including Robert Maplethorpe of "piss Christ" fame. When my former place of employment mounted an exhibition of privately-owned contemporary art, fellow employees complained that they felt "threatened" by some of the images. (I loved it.) I think Mr. Kreider deserves more of a bow than he claims.
1
I can easily imagine American evangelists taking extreme measures against a publisher of cartoons disrespectful of Christ or Biblical figures.
3
Many characterize these conflicts as religious in nature. But increasingly it seems that the conflict is between believers and humanists. How many of us humanists found surprising the insensitive comments of the Catholic League head, Bill Donohue, saying that the cartoonists' insensitivity brought this on themselves? I guess the Islamic terrorists are more extreme than Mr. Donohue who, as far as I know, has not violently acted on his beliefs. At the other end of the believer spectrum are Unitarians, a delightful set of believers, who give the notion of belief a deceptively good name.
The fact is that we humanists may be persuaded of things, but are rarely convinced of anything, at least not for long. It is thus unlikely that any of us will become fighting mad at someone who has ridiculed something about which we are persuaded, such as that the estate tax is a good thing, or even something about which we are convinced (for right how), such as that corporations do not pay enough income tax (but some years I think the shareholders, not the corporations, should pay tax).
No, I'll not take revenge for anyone's slandering my baseball team, my favorite Congressman or Senator, or even my preferred breed of dog. If someone were to slander my mother, I think I'd just walk away, pretending not to hear. And I'd watch a segment of Jon Stewart to lighten up my mood. But if someone slanders him, I just don't know what I'd do.
The fact is that we humanists may be persuaded of things, but are rarely convinced of anything, at least not for long. It is thus unlikely that any of us will become fighting mad at someone who has ridiculed something about which we are persuaded, such as that the estate tax is a good thing, or even something about which we are convinced (for right how), such as that corporations do not pay enough income tax (but some years I think the shareholders, not the corporations, should pay tax).
No, I'll not take revenge for anyone's slandering my baseball team, my favorite Congressman or Senator, or even my preferred breed of dog. If someone were to slander my mother, I think I'd just walk away, pretending not to hear. And I'd watch a segment of Jon Stewart to lighten up my mood. But if someone slanders him, I just don't know what I'd do.
Clearly this author has forgotten Rudy Giuliani's crusade against the artistic depiction of the mother of Jesus adorned with elephant dung. Or the rabid objections to Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ." The RIght Wing of Christianity and just about any other religion in the U.S. has about as much sense of humor about their sacred figures as the murderers in Paris. They may rarely resort to violence, but it doesn't mean that under some circumstances they wouldn't. When art pokes fun at anyone's religion, the death threats fly, even in the U.S. And to say that the first amendment speech is harmless is to deny the role that Sy Hersh's expose of My Lai had on the course of that war. This piece paints with far too broad a brush and ignores the militant elements that exist in our society, awash with assault weapons, ready to turn insult into deadly injury.
12
What's the price of the brutality and violence and criminality of colonialism that Europe imposed on every land and people they encountered centuries ago lasting well into the twentieth century? What's the price of the brutality of the United States' war on Iraq that was an illegal war promoted with lies? What's the price of the drone attacks that President Obama continues to launch today - the drones whose human operators neither know nor see the targets they aim at? The innocent lives, civilians, collateral damage, an abstraction all of it for people on the sidelines holding little signs that read 'Je Suis Charlie Hedbo' who to me seem ignorant of history and context. What happened at Charlie Hedbo is horrific, but let's stop and look at the history and the larger perspective. The refusal to acknowledge even the most recent histories and even attempt to tie all these events together, because they do go together, is why we constantly are faced with tragedies like this and will continue to be.
20
Absolutely. My goodness. Why didn't I think of that? The history of colonialism of Europe, and the drone attacks against ISIS and Al Qaeda, is exactly why a key part of of the plot was to take over the Hyper Kasher kosher supermarket and slaughter random Jews!
1
Want to know more about "borderline" cartoon art in the US?
There is a book out there entitled "The Rejection Collection," and it has plenty of things we are not used to seeing. Mostly the rejections are justified; the idea or the way it is expressed is plainly lame. But occasionally you encounter one that you wish had been published.
Or, get a copy of the CD's that accompany the book of "Complete Cartoons of The New Yorker." (The CD's are the complete archive, not the book.). Here you will find in the years prior to WWII depictions of Negroes that make your hair stand on end; and during the WWII years offensive characterizations of the Japanese. Looking back, the societal racism seems so transparent it is embarrassing.
I draw a weekly cartoon for a Cape Cod newspaper, and have had only one rejection. It depicted a bike rental stand containing bikes and wheelchairs, and was aimed at the growing Cape Cod demographic of retirees. (The town we lived in, and have since left, has the oldest average population in Massachusetts.)
Upon reflection I had to sympathize with my editor, who did not want to offend the innocent - and this group is clearly not able to change the inescapable fact of growing old and losing mobility. At 74, this has becomes ever more clear to me.
So my conclusion: hit hard at those who we decide truly are NOT innocent. But be very careful when making the distinction.
There is a book out there entitled "The Rejection Collection," and it has plenty of things we are not used to seeing. Mostly the rejections are justified; the idea or the way it is expressed is plainly lame. But occasionally you encounter one that you wish had been published.
Or, get a copy of the CD's that accompany the book of "Complete Cartoons of The New Yorker." (The CD's are the complete archive, not the book.). Here you will find in the years prior to WWII depictions of Negroes that make your hair stand on end; and during the WWII years offensive characterizations of the Japanese. Looking back, the societal racism seems so transparent it is embarrassing.
I draw a weekly cartoon for a Cape Cod newspaper, and have had only one rejection. It depicted a bike rental stand containing bikes and wheelchairs, and was aimed at the growing Cape Cod demographic of retirees. (The town we lived in, and have since left, has the oldest average population in Massachusetts.)
Upon reflection I had to sympathize with my editor, who did not want to offend the innocent - and this group is clearly not able to change the inescapable fact of growing old and losing mobility. At 74, this has becomes ever more clear to me.
So my conclusion: hit hard at those who we decide truly are NOT innocent. But be very careful when making the distinction.
4
Charlie Hebdo caricaturists certainly would not have wanted to be seen as heroes. But in a way, they were much more heroic than Rogen with his film on North Corea: despite the threats, and with their director living 24h with a guard, the place secured by 2 policemen since years, they kept creating their cartoons.
To all those who see them as having provoked what happened, this line of thought is outrageous. You can comment on the bad taste of some cartoons if you want, but their content was always to criticise the acts of integrists, fondamentalists, etc, of all religions. In the last decade, it is because of terrorist integrists that Charlie-Hebdo cartoons focused more regularly on muslim integrists. As their aim was always to focus on the absurdities of politics and religions, which is a fundamental right of any society based on freedom of expression. In many M-East countries some years ago, these cartoons were mixed with some other offensive material (pornographic for ex), by integrists intending to fuel up the rage against the West.
This is an extremely complex situation, and it seems that some Americans dont have the context to understand what is at stake. This is the least I can say without getting enraged at some comments here.
To all those who see them as having provoked what happened, this line of thought is outrageous. You can comment on the bad taste of some cartoons if you want, but their content was always to criticise the acts of integrists, fondamentalists, etc, of all religions. In the last decade, it is because of terrorist integrists that Charlie-Hebdo cartoons focused more regularly on muslim integrists. As their aim was always to focus on the absurdities of politics and religions, which is a fundamental right of any society based on freedom of expression. In many M-East countries some years ago, these cartoons were mixed with some other offensive material (pornographic for ex), by integrists intending to fuel up the rage against the West.
This is an extremely complex situation, and it seems that some Americans dont have the context to understand what is at stake. This is the least I can say without getting enraged at some comments here.
2
Excellent commentary by an artist who understands what he does and the larger context of culture. United States institutions are so dominant that no satire, critique, invective or moral condemnation can shake them. They absorb any voice of dissent and turn it into meaningless silence. Only if and when dissent can be marketed and transformed into money, it gets noticed. Then also, the voice is silenced as a harmless accommodation. Kreider may have done well to draw a parallel among religious fundamentalisms: Christian (the USA is a hotbed of Christian fundamentalism), Muslim, Jewish, and probably others. What they have in common is an unshakable and rigid belief in a truth validated by their unshakable and rigid belief in a god whose will they assume to understand and represent. Since there are no earthly truth and power greater than those of their god, they feel justified to commit acts that violate earthly, human morality and laws. Atrocities are known to occur driven by the clear-cut distinctions that religious fundamentalisms make. Surely, secular and mythological belief can also provoke "extremist" behavior, but it is more difficult to find in it validation of absolute truth as the belief in a single almighty god can.
1
First, the original drawings were made by a Danish nihilist anarchist of the Right seeking to promote xenophobia.
Charlie's motivation to publish was to ridicule the ignorance of the zealots who took the bait and also make a point for freedom of the press.
Sadly, I don't think they took into consideration France's situation with its North African minority, 2/3rds non-practicant, who probably took the publication as a slight to their heritage. In 2005, they had already endured 12yrs of denigration and police oppression. Presidents Chirac and Sarkozy actively nurtured the growth of xenophobia for political gain. (note: the French post-war economic expansion started to implode around 1990) Interior ministers made racial profiling standard practice since 1993. The same year of the publication, then presidential hopeful, Sarkozy labeled the rioting N. Africans "slime" and promised to "karchériser" them if elected.
Then and now, the chances to succeed for a male N. African are the same as that for a Black male of West Chicago. There have been numerous experiments taking a strait A N.African job candidate making the rounds of French corporations followed by a very mediocre DuPont. In the French corporate world, the DuPont got the job every time. Racism is tangible as I had the chance to have worked in many Parisian offices throughout the early 90's.
With that background, I felt Charlie Hebdo's action unfortunate and gratuitous.
Charlie's motivation to publish was to ridicule the ignorance of the zealots who took the bait and also make a point for freedom of the press.
Sadly, I don't think they took into consideration France's situation with its North African minority, 2/3rds non-practicant, who probably took the publication as a slight to their heritage. In 2005, they had already endured 12yrs of denigration and police oppression. Presidents Chirac and Sarkozy actively nurtured the growth of xenophobia for political gain. (note: the French post-war economic expansion started to implode around 1990) Interior ministers made racial profiling standard practice since 1993. The same year of the publication, then presidential hopeful, Sarkozy labeled the rioting N. Africans "slime" and promised to "karchériser" them if elected.
Then and now, the chances to succeed for a male N. African are the same as that for a Black male of West Chicago. There have been numerous experiments taking a strait A N.African job candidate making the rounds of French corporations followed by a very mediocre DuPont. In the French corporate world, the DuPont got the job every time. Racism is tangible as I had the chance to have worked in many Parisian offices throughout the early 90's.
With that background, I felt Charlie Hebdo's action unfortunate and gratuitous.
6
Some have leveled the charge against Charlie Hebdo that in satirizing aspects of Islam, the white French cartoonists were picking on an oppressed minority. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, "being oppressed does not make one more sophisticated or civilized".
The qualities of fundamentalist religion (Islamic, Hindu, Christian, Jewish...) do not contribute much to a civilized world. Outside of the small circle of friends, no civil, secular society has a stake in fundamentalism (and maybe has no stake in religion at all).
Whether it's creationism, female genital mutilation, death contracts on disapproved authors, homophobia, illegal settlements on the West Bank, suicide bombers, we are not cultural vegetarians. Barbecued sacred cow a la Charlie should be on every menu (including the New York Times).
The qualities of fundamentalist religion (Islamic, Hindu, Christian, Jewish...) do not contribute much to a civilized world. Outside of the small circle of friends, no civil, secular society has a stake in fundamentalism (and maybe has no stake in religion at all).
Whether it's creationism, female genital mutilation, death contracts on disapproved authors, homophobia, illegal settlements on the West Bank, suicide bombers, we are not cultural vegetarians. Barbecued sacred cow a la Charlie should be on every menu (including the New York Times).
5
Cartoons definitely could make people in the US upset. The mentioned example of G.W.Bush as a dung flinging chimpanzee is pretty tame and harmless. I would suggest that you consider something that really goes against the current political correctness. What if someone made cartoons ridiculing the anonymous Bill Cosby accusers? Cannot be more specific out of fear of ending up in jail myself.
6
Tim, I am afraid your assessment of the diminished impact of art in the US is also indicative of out post-intellectual society. When the majority engages primarily with thoughtless distractions (pro sports, pop culture, etc.) I see little hope gaining appreciation that requires a bit of higher level thinking.
9
This is magnificent. Particularly the idea that cartoonists in American are not doing anything worth getting them shot. We do not understand the need to savagely point out human weakness and that all ideas are not equal. Humor works miracles when it is intense.
This country is filled with vulgarity and human weakness; from legalized bribery in our government to the trivialization of important matters such as global climate change. When was the last time you heard Wolf Blitzer mention that gorilla in the room when it is visible all around us and growing daily? And our constant struggle in America to get the separation of church and state correct after several hundred years (Frank Bruni does a great write-up on that today in this paper).
Massive problems with other energy problems: how to get renewables cranked up and the horrendous dangers of burning coal--climate change and coal ash toxic residues spread all over the country in one of our largest waste streams.
Over population straining everything. The strain on our ecological carrying capacity--country and world. The economic stratification of societies into elites and the masses. Social injustices all around. Corporations with more and more power. Out educational system in taters.
So where are you cartoonists????????????????
This country is filled with vulgarity and human weakness; from legalized bribery in our government to the trivialization of important matters such as global climate change. When was the last time you heard Wolf Blitzer mention that gorilla in the room when it is visible all around us and growing daily? And our constant struggle in America to get the separation of church and state correct after several hundred years (Frank Bruni does a great write-up on that today in this paper).
Massive problems with other energy problems: how to get renewables cranked up and the horrendous dangers of burning coal--climate change and coal ash toxic residues spread all over the country in one of our largest waste streams.
Over population straining everything. The strain on our ecological carrying capacity--country and world. The economic stratification of societies into elites and the masses. Social injustices all around. Corporations with more and more power. Out educational system in taters.
So where are you cartoonists????????????????
6
Does Mr. Kreider believe that it was simply the cartoons that triggered the recent terrorist attack in Paris? As Malcolm Gladwell would have it, the cartoons were a tipping point, but not the sole cause. The terrorists might understand that the West and its allies have launched a systematic attack on what they deem to be sacred, and the Prophet is the ultimate embodiment of the sacred in the psyches of many believers. Likewise an establishment like Charlie Hebdo is an emblem of much that is held sacred in Western secularism. The attack does not prove beyond doubt that art still has the power to really offend. I believe that art as much as the military drones are placeholders of what Islamicists perceive as a long-term Western offensive launched against them.
7
The article is emblematic of the verbal reaction to the murder of the cartoonists. People know how they feel but they don't know what to say about it, or they don't know how to say it clearly or definitively. On the one hand, "the pen is mightier than the sword." On the other hand, they want to pull in their head and say, "Hey, it was only a cartoon." Vonnegut was right. Art is a cream pie compared to the machinations of real power. When violence rears its ugly head against art, such as it manifested itself, in this case, in the pages of Charlie Hebdo, it is exhilarating to conflate the power of what was after all just an excuse for homicidal miscreants to exercise what they have decided is the meaning of their life. Was Archduke Franz Ferdinand a hero for being assassinated by a teenager? Was he an excuse for the teenager, or was he an excuse for the animal spirits of nationalism? Today, we confer on the deceased the title of "hero," an accolade that has been cheapened over the last decade or so for how easily it is dispensed for the most unheroic of actions and even inactions. Warhol famously said, "Everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes." Perhaps if he were alive today he would update it to, "Everyone will be a hero for fifteen minutes." So, for now, it's Je suis Charlie. But, tell me, who were the heroes of 9/11? They're chiseled in marble. And things have only gotten worse since then. Why? Because we waste our time looking for heroes and not solutions.
8
To the extent human beings are not "designed" (I mean, of course, hard-wired by Mother Nature, not god) to be sheeple, we are certainly built to be.
All one has to do is see this pattern work itself out in society is to see how we obsess about teens -- i.e., those who have not yet be completely beaten down to fear risk and to lust after status/money/power in accord with the rules laid down by those who already have (and want to keep) status/power/money.
For example, we ask ourselves, how DARE they take risks? Or how DARE they think-outside-the-box? And since they do dare, we determine that their brains are not just different (which, yes, is true) but that difference means those brains are deficient, specifically "immature."
Yep, to dare to be something other than sheeple, one is labelled as "immature." Or some such to harness that non-sheeple or wolf-like aspect of human nature.
When art begins to beat up the so-called adults in this society rather than contribute to the infantlization of teens or the otherness of non-sheeple is when I'll accept that it be called "art."
All one has to do is see this pattern work itself out in society is to see how we obsess about teens -- i.e., those who have not yet be completely beaten down to fear risk and to lust after status/money/power in accord with the rules laid down by those who already have (and want to keep) status/power/money.
For example, we ask ourselves, how DARE they take risks? Or how DARE they think-outside-the-box? And since they do dare, we determine that their brains are not just different (which, yes, is true) but that difference means those brains are deficient, specifically "immature."
Yep, to dare to be something other than sheeple, one is labelled as "immature." Or some such to harness that non-sheeple or wolf-like aspect of human nature.
When art begins to beat up the so-called adults in this society rather than contribute to the infantlization of teens or the otherness of non-sheeple is when I'll accept that it be called "art."
That was excellent Tim. Spot on. Thanks.
4
It must be nice to be so naive or purport to be. We all know that in North America there are limits on free speech all the time: anti-Semitism being just one example. Were I to post an anti-Semitic cartoon to the post I would be shut down immediately, yet if I were to post one of Charlie Hebdo's anti-Muslim cartoons I would be lauded. All this racism disguised as support for free-speech is just that. People don't get their hands lopped off in the US for expressing their dissent, they are imprisoned, e.g. John Kiriakou and Chelsea Manning, and often tortured in the case of individuals labelled as "terrorist supporters".
18
Sadly...you are absolutely correct. Many flirt with the idea of Freedom of Speech in this country, but try speaking out or drawing something controversial and the thought police will be after you.
1
This is interesting, and the topic needs to be explored. I think that there must be more to say about the way our freedom in this country somehow seems tame - the idea that we can say anything we want but it has no consequences. But France has had freedom of speech for a long time too, and yet their speech hasn't apparently grown tame and safe. Unless we are taking that too much for granted - I suppose we could wake up to see headlines that one of our provocative entertainers has been attacked...
And somehow it works that we aren't actually safer, it's just that our crazy attackers tend to attack what seems most inoffensive - students at school... or domestic partners and in-laws.
Now I'm just thinking off the top of my head, but I wonder if we haven't developed a "tame" public discourse because of the underlying violence of our society - you can say what you like among friends, but in a strange bar you have to be careful who you insult. Even our on-line trolls are quick to hide behind aliases, although you might think that jerks would be happy to insult people under their own names.
Enough for me for one morning, but we should all keep thinking about this.
And somehow it works that we aren't actually safer, it's just that our crazy attackers tend to attack what seems most inoffensive - students at school... or domestic partners and in-laws.
Now I'm just thinking off the top of my head, but I wonder if we haven't developed a "tame" public discourse because of the underlying violence of our society - you can say what you like among friends, but in a strange bar you have to be careful who you insult. Even our on-line trolls are quick to hide behind aliases, although you might think that jerks would be happy to insult people under their own names.
Enough for me for one morning, but we should all keep thinking about this.
14
Dear atheists: do not use this as yet another opportunity to attack religion. Acts like this go against everything I believe in: the killers in this case do not represent me any more than they represent you. Meanwhile, the "art" of the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo is actually nothing more than crass hatred. This fallacy that they are "equal opportunity" provocateurs -- the religious, and especially Muslims, seem to have more opportunities with them than everyone else. Add to that the fact that Muslims are an oppressed minority in France, and suddenly their work seems somewhat less than artistic.
8
Read Bertrand Russell's comments on the alleged moral superiority of the oppressed.
1
Hi, David. If by "attack" you mean disagree, criticize, contradict, or even ridicule then you'd better get used to it. If in our free society you can believe what you want, then I get to comment as I see fit.
2
Maybe the lack of commentary on this seriously important topic means free speech really is futile. But it always has been for individuals; it's the concommittant right to free assembly that's supposed to put teeth in it. The Internet should in theory assist assembly. Does it? Does anyone care? At least it doesn't matter if you split a couple of infinitives.
2
We remember when Mayor Juliane banned the Brooklyn Museum's showing of the Virgin Mary besmirched with elephant dung. A really silly over reaction by the mayor.
It may not be"art" per say, what ever that is, but it was a statement.
Cartoons are a statement of a point of view. Murdering the cartoonists does nothing to impede the statements, others will pick up the ideas.
It may not be"art" per say, what ever that is, but it was a statement.
Cartoons are a statement of a point of view. Murdering the cartoonists does nothing to impede the statements, others will pick up the ideas.
2
Very well said.
Satire is the only weapon the powerless have against the powerful. And yes i consider the brave men and women of CH Heroes. It is ironic that these dark instances of horror always seem to find a way to shine a light on the heroes among us.
Let us pledge to carry on their work. The Pen is and always will be mightier than the sword.
Satire is the only weapon the powerless have against the powerful. And yes i consider the brave men and women of CH Heroes. It is ironic that these dark instances of horror always seem to find a way to shine a light on the heroes among us.
Let us pledge to carry on their work. The Pen is and always will be mightier than the sword.
3
Tim, this was one of the most moving, informed, and informative pieces I've read on the subject. The analogies, quips, and vocabulary are compelling.
You absolutely nailed it with "It’s a testament to the brittleness and fragility of ideologies like the thuggish cult of North Korea and the more homicidally literalist sects of Islam that they react so violently to art most Westerners regard as silly and trivial: dumb comedies, crude cartoons."
You're a brilliant writer who is still humble enough to be self-deprecating - that's a rare and admirable combination. Thank you for expanding my perspective.
You absolutely nailed it with "It’s a testament to the brittleness and fragility of ideologies like the thuggish cult of North Korea and the more homicidally literalist sects of Islam that they react so violently to art most Westerners regard as silly and trivial: dumb comedies, crude cartoons."
You're a brilliant writer who is still humble enough to be self-deprecating - that's a rare and admirable combination. Thank you for expanding my perspective.
7
Herblock did some pretty devastating cartoons of Nixon. Walt Kelly lampooned McCarthy pretty effectively. There were the cartoons of the Nazis by Theodor Seuss Geisel (aka Dr. Suess). Maybe not as influential as Nast, but still pretty good.
4
Yet, as Jacob Canfield writes in "The Hooded Utilitarian, "[Hebdo’s] cartoons make it very clear who the white editorial staff was interested in provoking: France’s incredibly marginalized, often attacked, Muslim immigrant community. … [But] white men punching down is not a recipe for good satire, and needs to be called out. People getting upset does not prove that the satire was good. ... Their satire was racist, and remains racist." Which makes it different from political cartoons against Nixon, McCarthy, or the Nazis, though still completely deserving of protection as free expression and certainly not justifying violence. Does this difference matter? Should we consider it before (or while, nonetheless) claiming "we are all Charlie Hebdo?"
1
You're so right when you say, "Wait, this was about cartoons?" Exactly; but I'm not even sure the rest of your commentary goes there. And I think this is important, because what I most loathe about all of this is the sotto voce, never (in the West), openly assumed feeling, that, well, they shouldn't have said such Charlie Hebdo things like that about "religion", whether "ours" or whatever other others, meaning that, even if only by the standards of the most fanatic wing of those "religions" themselves, they more or less had what was coming to them.
I can't imagine a more entire cause for pessimism about our human condition at this point in time than that irremediably contemptible idea.
I can't imagine a more entire cause for pessimism about our human condition at this point in time than that irremediably contemptible idea.
The answer regarding publication of offensive material: Habituation.
Many more newspapers, magazines, news programs, etc. globally should publish much, much more of this material. Why? First, we need to remove the isolation that makes businesses like Charlie Hebdo an obvious target. Second, we need to make this material so common that, by its sheer volume, over time, non-moderate Muslims will be forced to accept that they can ignore or tolerate the material and still practice their religion without anything bad happening -- just like all the other religions do.
Many more newspapers, magazines, news programs, etc. globally should publish much, much more of this material. Why? First, we need to remove the isolation that makes businesses like Charlie Hebdo an obvious target. Second, we need to make this material so common that, by its sheer volume, over time, non-moderate Muslims will be forced to accept that they can ignore or tolerate the material and still practice their religion without anything bad happening -- just like all the other religions do.
9
How does South Park slip through these conversations unacknowledged, unnamed, dishing up first-run and countless re-runs to American audiences throughout the evening hours, reliably offensive, sparing no one, always good for a laugh?
7
Except for the episode making fun of Islam, which was censored and ultimately made unviewable.
3
Maybe that makes the author's point - we watch this satire, feel amused or moderately offended or both, and then do basically nothing about the serious problems that are the subject of the satire.
3
Osip Mandelstam remarked that only in Russia is poetry respected; it gets people killed there. Now Charlie Hebdo has the dubious distinction of being respected.
http://www.thecriticalmom.blogspot.com
http://www.thecriticalmom.blogspot.com
7
If you want to be a satirist, including political cartoonist, you have to be able not only to dish it out, but to take it.
Of course the jousting field should be in the realm of words or even in the courts, not looking down the barrel of a Kalashnikov.
American mainstream newspapers or media do not want to be involved in endless battles and/or litigation.
But if they do allow cartoonists free rein, then they should not be surprised if others execute their rights of free speech to respond in kind or to use other legitimate and legal means to respond.
Of course the jousting field should be in the realm of words or even in the courts, not looking down the barrel of a Kalashnikov.
American mainstream newspapers or media do not want to be involved in endless battles and/or litigation.
But if they do allow cartoonists free rein, then they should not be surprised if others execute their rights of free speech to respond in kind or to use other legitimate and legal means to respond.
4
Insulting and making fun of other believes is an art? What type o art? There must be some other issues behind the scene.
6
Yes, it is called Satire. Holding sacrosanct beliefs up to the light of humor is one of the most important functions of art. From Aeschylus on down, satirists have always made sure we can see the hypocrisies in our beliefs. I wouldn't want to live in a world without it.
7
Lots of interesting ideas in your often funny piece. One caveat - I don't think "hero" is a childish word for grown-ups to use. There really are some heroes out there - certainly not those who guide anonymous drones - but real people risking their lives for others. I realize that's just a small aside in your article - but - wanted to defend the word. But thanks for the thoughtful piece!
5
Let's not forget Jeff and Judy Rank, the Texas couple who were arrested on trespassing charges at a 2004 W. Bush rally in Charleston, WV, after they refused to remove their anti-Bush T-shirts. They later settled with the federal government for $80,000.
This nation has created an environment where the State is free to operate without restraint. You may not be locked up, but they can confiscate your property, ruin your credit rating and bankrupt you with legal fees.
Every word that you utter on the phone and every electronic communication (this screed, perhaps?) is stored away a system that makes every citizen a virtual suspect.
So who can blame a man if he gets the idea that it's best to just keep your mouth shut?
This nation has created an environment where the State is free to operate without restraint. You may not be locked up, but they can confiscate your property, ruin your credit rating and bankrupt you with legal fees.
Every word that you utter on the phone and every electronic communication (this screed, perhaps?) is stored away a system that makes every citizen a virtual suspect.
So who can blame a man if he gets the idea that it's best to just keep your mouth shut?
19
"Could a cartoon really alarm anyone in the United States"? is the question asked. The answer, unfortunately, is yes!
1
My Muslim friends are sorry for the murders of the Charlie staff. Some are writers and artists in their own right and appreciate the risks that iconoclasts take with their freedom, offensive though they may be. Beyond that, they fear another rise in the anti-Muslim fervor feverishly stoked by racist demagogues. And, they confess, that they find some of the courser depictions of the Prophet Muhammad hurtful to them as believers. They accept that cartoons and speech offensive to their and other religious are part of the price of living in an open society. But it doesn't diminish their sadness at feeling marginalized at times like these.
17
This cutting article is a moving tribute to free journalism. I thank the NYT for disseminating Mr. Kreider's expedient insights.
Obviously, in the case of Capitalism, unpaid or underpaid artists are appropriate to speak truth to power. They may be ignored but their subversive effect is subterranean.
In the case of terror in the name of Islam, it is the fear of breaking through tabus with art.
In a repressive society, art and free speech are dangerous.
"The pen is mightier than the sword".
Art has the power to enlighten and evoke a vision of a better world.
This is a threat to any system trying to grab power.
Art and free speech reminds us that the real power is always in the hands of the people.
The victims of the Charlie Hebdo Massacre are true heroes. They risked everything to defend the freedom of art and journalism.
Obviously, in the case of Capitalism, unpaid or underpaid artists are appropriate to speak truth to power. They may be ignored but their subversive effect is subterranean.
In the case of terror in the name of Islam, it is the fear of breaking through tabus with art.
In a repressive society, art and free speech are dangerous.
"The pen is mightier than the sword".
Art has the power to enlighten and evoke a vision of a better world.
This is a threat to any system trying to grab power.
Art and free speech reminds us that the real power is always in the hands of the people.
The victims of the Charlie Hebdo Massacre are true heroes. They risked everything to defend the freedom of art and journalism.
2
I'm somewhat bemused at this editorialist's sanitized view of "art" (or more specifically cartoons as popular art) as uncontroversial and harmless in the USA. Blackface and "darky" cartoons are considered deeply offensive in this country but not elsewhere. And, if unlikely to produce a massacre, they have produced enough protest and rightful indignation in the US, at least since the Civil Rights movement in the 60s. Thankfully they are for the most part out of general view by now--the result of "self-censorship" in the media, the pressure of political forces, and hopefully an internalized sensibility in the public of how offensive these images can be. This seems to me to be the more appropriate equivalent in terms of controversial "art" that the author should be addressing, not political cartoons. People are offended in this country by racist "art." And I can remember the national and international tempest that irrupted over the issuing of a commemorative stamp of the "darky" boy Memin Pinguin in Mexico only a few years ago. That event even involved a protest by Jesse Jackson. I suppose anti-semitic "art" is also more than controversial, it would be considered deeply offensive and dangerous too. I'm not even sure about the legal status of this kind of "art." So let's look inside our country too--and not just feel bewildered at the "absurd" sensibilities of "other" "cultures" and groups.
3
The fundamental question that needs to be asked is : "Are we so full of our own virtue that we cannot see ourselves as others do?" Was there ever a time in our own history when we used cartoons to mock, ridicule or demean immigrants, blacks or other minorities ? Do we have an unending respect of those whose ideas or beliefs might be different from our own ? I am devout Catholic. Have there ever been demeaning or even hateful cartoons depicting clergy of my faith ? Of course ! The pen can indeed be used as a weapon against anyone we hold in contempt. Perhaps the greatest power we have is over our own instincts to debase, demean, ridicule or mock is to refrain from doing any of that out of respect for others. What has ever been accomplished by the media by public criticism of our target ? Do we really believe that anything has been accomplished in mindlessly mocking President Putin or Dubya for example ? The media is relentless in throwing rocks, but maybe we should remember a famous Jew who once said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Beating up on the least among us is a source of pride ? Murdering innocents is not normal, but what happens when you bait the lunatic few? "War is all hell" and now we have declared war again on the intolerant but who are they again ? Which side of the table are they on ? Where is the collateral damage when there is backlash brought on by the actions of a few ? Freedom requires responsibility to protect the many from the few.
1
If we only have freedom when it "accomplishes" something, we DON'T have freedom. And that's before reaching the thorny concerns around "who decides" if a particular piece of speech accomplishes it's goal, or if the goal is WORTHY of accomplishing.
1
Great essay, except one thing: the reason art is so painless and harmless here is that e.g. satire of the level of Charlie Hebdo, meant to provoke and offend, and kick off discussion, is smothered under a ever thickening sauce of political correctness. In a culture that is concerned about MICROagressions, offensive art is off-limits. Not because there aren't subjects, groups, ideologies worth giving offense too, but because of our cultural timidity of offending anyone, let alone anyone who could do actual harm.
10
We self-censor all sorts of cartoon or allow other people to censor them. Our society rightfully doesn't permit the kinds of depictions of Jews the Nazi press circulated or demeaning depictions of African-Americans. In mainstream venues, there are still limits on violence, sexuality, debasement of others, though this limit gets pushed insidiously all the time.
Words are more difficult to censor. A sizable proportion of young-earthers surely believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as much a calumny as the despicable cartoons.
Rudy Giuliani, "America's mayor", won points trying to shut down the Brooklyn Museum over Chris Ofili's depiction of the Virgin, which employed elephant dung and collaged pornographic images as well as conventional paint. Many Americans would celebrate the tar-and-feathering of this artist. And, yes, of course, others would and could defend him.
All societies have limits, differing culture to culture. Insane people who find their limits trampled take insane steps, such as we've just seen in Paris, and in the recent assassination of two NYC police officers. Fellow travelers, due to culture, tradition and passivity, silently stand by or applaud.
Ygj wrote yesterday that the Muslim world must reach the understanding that "that no religion is perfect and no interpretation of God is perfect." Amen. But understand, too, that all societies restrict at least some behaviors. Defaming the Prophet Muhammand leads the list in the Muslim world.
Words are more difficult to censor. A sizable proportion of young-earthers surely believe in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as much a calumny as the despicable cartoons.
Rudy Giuliani, "America's mayor", won points trying to shut down the Brooklyn Museum over Chris Ofili's depiction of the Virgin, which employed elephant dung and collaged pornographic images as well as conventional paint. Many Americans would celebrate the tar-and-feathering of this artist. And, yes, of course, others would and could defend him.
All societies have limits, differing culture to culture. Insane people who find their limits trampled take insane steps, such as we've just seen in Paris, and in the recent assassination of two NYC police officers. Fellow travelers, due to culture, tradition and passivity, silently stand by or applaud.
Ygj wrote yesterday that the Muslim world must reach the understanding that "that no religion is perfect and no interpretation of God is perfect." Amen. But understand, too, that all societies restrict at least some behaviors. Defaming the Prophet Muhammand leads the list in the Muslim world.
War is wrong and assassination is wrong, no matter who drops the bombs or does the killing. And no one should be insensitive to the loss of life under any circumstances. But what is also wrong is relentless mockery systematically directed toward one group that is already experiencing more the pains of oppression than the comforts enjoyed by others. Those childish cartoonists should have been killed because of their crude, cruel, humourless images; even if they were often thought to be hiding behind freedom of speech as cover to strike out and hurt. But psychologists remind us that psychological abuse is more damaging than that that is physical. And we respect parents and teachers who instil in us from childhood that it is not because we are more powerful or in more powerful positions that we should bully those less protected by our laws. And why would we ever ignore the degrading physical descriptions by which the nazis defined Jews during World War II? When would we not speak out against the hideous drawings meant to depict African-Americans -- and all Africans -- circulating still? However, our goal should not be to silence anyone, but to ponder the protests and the outcries that occur when the hurtful pen is held by artists and thinkers with brown hands. Attempts are often made to silence them to the point of financial ruin -- as is also the case of those courageous independent minds from the dominant group who stand up for freedom of expression without the hypocrisy.
2
Many commenters seem to have not really seen/understood these cartoons and what they were about: they were focused upon terrorist integrists. Charlie Hebdo is focused on satirizing about all situations and all ideologies based on repression, violence and unequalities. They were clear their focus was not on muslims per se but on integrists, and then of all religions. Would be good to get informed before criticizing their work. It was not just silly cartoons aiming at mocking. Too bad in many american papers, this is not made clear.
Hoping my comment will be authorized, otherwise I will have serious questions about freedom of expression in this paper.
Hoping my comment will be authorized, otherwise I will have serious questions about freedom of expression in this paper.
1
In my above post there is a typographical error in the sentence that begins at the end of line 5. It should read "Those childish cartoonists should NOT have been killed because of their crude, cruel, humourless images; even if they were often thought to be hiding behind freedom of speech as a cover to strike out and hurt." ... I promise to proofread twice from now on !
4
Did those cartoonists constantly paint Israeli integrists and terrorists in the most degrading images imaginable? No, they did not. Or did they simply throw the Torah in with the Bible and the Koran once to ward off criticism concerning the lack of objectivity. A child could see through such elementary planning and strategy. I live here, and I haven't seen anyone point out multiple depictions that they drew in protest of the crimes and criminals and horrors of their group. Had they been able to do produce them, they would have shown that they were capable of criticizing the inequalities, repression, violence and massacres carried out by all sides -- especially those who colonise others. So what can be found that is objective, balanced and educational about their mean tactics?
1
Art, literature and theater can be confronting, in poor taste, offensive or plain stupid. None of the artists however deserve to die because of theior art.
3
The funny thing about satire is that it must be detached. The hard thing this week is to remain satirical when such tragedy has occurred. I must say that this commentary threaded that needle with aplomb.
2
As a French reader, I'm surprised by this opinion'. In my mind I thought that the USA was a democracy where 'freedom of speech' was a reality, not just some words written on a piece of paper more than two centuries ago. I am offended everyday by bad movies, bad songs, trash TV programms, bad articles in papers, bad books ... Why cartoonists should only inform me and make me smile. Do I need them for that purpose ? I'm pleased that I live in a country were they can draw about sex, religion, policemen, black or white people, powerful people, privileges ...and offend me if I belong to one of this category. Anf then I will smile ... That is democracy and 'freedom of speech'. If I can't tolerate that, there are plenty of countries where I could find exile.
To the moderator : Please be free to improve my style.
To the moderator : Please be free to improve my style.
4
I was powerfully influenced by a Tom Toles cartoon in the Washington Post at the initiation of the surge by President Bush. (It showed Bush electrifying a zombie.) It made me against the surge. Which is a stupid way to decide something.
1
"Hyperbole and a half," XKCD," and "SMBC' have been so important to my family that we often start our days by reading new cartoons and/or re-reading old favorites that never, ever lose their original power. This is our version of reading the comic's page in years gone by, and it makes us ridiculously happy.
It was always difficult to make a living as an artist, and it has become even more so in this world of shrinking print magazines and newspapers, but the internet is alive with great cartoonists, animators, short-film producers and comedic writers (I'm looking at you "Cracked.com" staff!).
When the opportunity arises to purchase a print version of an artist's work, or to pay for a download, we grab it. I don't want to lose these voices, because their words have had an enormous impact on me and on those I love.
Art is no less important in our free and tolerant society, but it's effect is often deeply personal and difficult to gauge. You won't know this by looking at me, but I am a better person because of the cartoons and comedy I absorb each day -- and sharing laughter together has made my family stronger and closer.
Thank you artists!
It was always difficult to make a living as an artist, and it has become even more so in this world of shrinking print magazines and newspapers, but the internet is alive with great cartoonists, animators, short-film producers and comedic writers (I'm looking at you "Cracked.com" staff!).
When the opportunity arises to purchase a print version of an artist's work, or to pay for a download, we grab it. I don't want to lose these voices, because their words have had an enormous impact on me and on those I love.
Art is no less important in our free and tolerant society, but it's effect is often deeply personal and difficult to gauge. You won't know this by looking at me, but I am a better person because of the cartoons and comedy I absorb each day -- and sharing laughter together has made my family stronger and closer.
Thank you artists!
3
'Saturday Night Live' is the closest thing we in America have ever come to Charlie Hebdo. but since its inception 40 years ago things have changed. Both for SNL and the country as well.
In 1975 the protest movement was just about over. Still People were keeping a watchful eye on "Them" the politicians and big companies that had thought it wise and profitable to send young men off to the Jungles all in the name of patriotism. Patriotism for us was profit for them.
When the Vietnam war ended, so did the Protest Movement. Still, people did not trust the establishment. The Establishment for its credit changed as well. The Draft was ended. An all volunteer army was created. Coincidentally at this time it became harder to find work in America, which made going into the army an attractive alternate to unemployment. The establishment saw that If other people were doing the fighting, and if you weren't forced to go, people basically stayed quiet.
SNL is a descendent of an underground culture. This came from a time when there were forces that avidly pursued censorship as a way to control the masses. The Establishment soon learned, that banning things only had the effect of making those forbidden thing enticing and sexy, especially to the young. Once again the Establishment learned, and censorship just about ended, and so did the counter culture. As the years progressed the people in charge got their desired effect. A population in which conformity is desired above all.
In 1975 the protest movement was just about over. Still People were keeping a watchful eye on "Them" the politicians and big companies that had thought it wise and profitable to send young men off to the Jungles all in the name of patriotism. Patriotism for us was profit for them.
When the Vietnam war ended, so did the Protest Movement. Still, people did not trust the establishment. The Establishment for its credit changed as well. The Draft was ended. An all volunteer army was created. Coincidentally at this time it became harder to find work in America, which made going into the army an attractive alternate to unemployment. The establishment saw that If other people were doing the fighting, and if you weren't forced to go, people basically stayed quiet.
SNL is a descendent of an underground culture. This came from a time when there were forces that avidly pursued censorship as a way to control the masses. The Establishment soon learned, that banning things only had the effect of making those forbidden thing enticing and sexy, especially to the young. Once again the Establishment learned, and censorship just about ended, and so did the counter culture. As the years progressed the people in charge got their desired effect. A population in which conformity is desired above all.
2
I'll pose it as a question: Does violating someone's religious sensibilities, particularly those of the poorest and those with the least social mobility, equate to satirizing our inept and corrupt officials, dictators, and the powerful religious leaders who train terrorists?
If a cartoon of Mohammed triggers the kind of violence that occurred in France, are the purposes of satire really being served?
If a cartoon of Mohammed triggers the kind of violence that occurred in France, are the purposes of satire really being served?
7
It speaks to the inherent racism and anti-islamic bias of the society in which these cartoonists are very carefully throwing their poison pen darts at fundamentalist regligious ideology, that those in the middle, those who are not so far flung in their religious zeal, don't feel supported enough to ignore these cartoons (horribly, horribly, offensive as they may be). Just as left wingers in the US ignore Fox news blathering. Though there are some tea party nuts who are on that very edge of being instigated in to violent reactions to what is perceived as liberal ideology in the US (and even though one wouldn't count Obama in that group, he is the president that has had the most number of assassination attempts on him...). So I would re-direct your question to France as a whole, not the cartoonists. Have they secretly used these cartoons to feed their own islamophobia and xenophobia? In this massive rally in Paris today, is their any vestige of solidarity with non-fundamentalist muslims so less and less feel inclined to "understanding" the rage of the loser, outcast in their community drawn to radical islam as a means of reclaiming identity and self-respect?
2
To your first question, an unequivocal No - it does not equate. However, the answer to the second is so complex. On the one hand, ordinary French Muslims are not powerful, they are marginalized - and arguably not deserving of having their religious beliefs crudely and offensively lampooned by members of the dominant class in French society. On the other hand, violent Islamic extremism is fermenting around the world, drawing strength from sources as diverse as parochial Wahhabi clerics in Saudi Arabia, politically suppressed activists in secular Arab autocracies, economically dispossessed and angry young men in Nigeria and Somalia, and violent young losers in western societies (who might well have joined some "ordinary" murderous criminal gang in the absence of an Islamist cause.) And for a variety of reasons, the wider Muslim community - which has itself been seized by a period of remarkable religious revivalism in the past half century - is not yet entirely convinced of the key danger this violent Islamist extremism represents, and not yet entirely on board with excluding and eradicating it from the religion. So if these violent young killers in France were being encouraged and animated by this globally fermenting movement, does that put the satire in a different light? Does it seem more fair?
Your question seems to suggest that the religions of the poor and socially immobile are somehow exempt from criticism. I would suggest that it is those very beliefs that imprison them.
And what do you believe is the purpose of satire? People who claim to be offended by words and pictures are probably uncertain of the validity of their own beliefs.
And what do you believe is the purpose of satire? People who claim to be offended by words and pictures are probably uncertain of the validity of their own beliefs.
Thank you for this thoughtful rendering of cultural differences which we often lose in our "us-against-them" discourse. Having lived among people of 'old' cultures for nearly 12 years, having had to consider positive and negative comments about 'Americans' (down to the fact that I speak "American not English", what the Charlie Hebdo attack is bringing to us in a visceral way is not only the discussion of free speech, but the value of art, much more valued on European shores than my own as a medium of life. When we disenfranchise and displace people by insensitive immigration practices and war, but use many of them to do the jobs we wouldn't do, we are setting ourselves up, particularly in a world of more fluid travel and arms trade, for a kind of 'freedom' of speech which to us is as repellent as what fundamentalists experience through their lenses. If I read him correctly, I think that Mr. Kreider is saying that we may not be able to take the easy way out any longer. Negotiation requires finesse in understanding cultural differences and relating them verbally, etc. Art exists for its own sake. It should provoke visceral and emotional responses but as societies, we need to continue the struggle for identification and integration of people, Muslims, Jews, people of color, who we see as not 'us'. Artists and activists provoke us within our own cultures; education and social media can be used to teach us to first react, then reflect, and only then, to respond cross-culturally.
13
How about you show some degree of respect to the emotions and feelings of others and cease a career built on being as offensive to others as possible.
Just because one doesn't obtain a machine gun doesn't mean he is not deeply offended by assaults against christianity, the pope, the Virgin, the Christ, or anything else.
Just because one doesn't obtain a machine gun doesn't mean he is not deeply offended by assaults against christianity, the pope, the Virgin, the Christ, or anything else.
9
And your right to be offended is protected by the Constitution.
5
There is no right not to be offended. Sorry.
8
"No one is spared" being the operative. That is the ultimate goal of our First Amendment. But sadly, others do not have and do not follow this wise Amendment!!
7
What is so sad in this country is that we're self censored, the French especially the Parisians are not. The number of cartoonist left in this country are fewer than those who were killed at Charlie Hebdo. Is the problem in our culture that we take ourselves too seriously. Charlie Hebdo spared no one in its French tradition of political satire, which is critical thinking, is that what the we are spared in our country, critical thinking? Is political correctness so pervasive that it has invaded art, commentary and especially journalism?
But I'm very happy to be able to voice my opinion.
Thank you - Art is not dangerous!!
But I'm very happy to be able to voice my opinion.
Thank you - Art is not dangerous!!
25
Kurt Vonnegut was right. Art itself will not produce change. However, art can act as a catalyst for action, which can be transformative, but it is not a substitute for action.
5
In reply to Mr. Jennings, certainly you must know that not everyone in France is allowed to express political or social satire; it depends on who you are and whom you're targeting. Freedom of expression only exists for those in this world who are protected by the powers that be; and the media write the script while deleting or minimising any others that question wrongs on all sides. Those very same cartoonists who were so committed to free speech, published a crude, racist drawing of an African-French satirist who often criticizes crimes committed by Israel by depicting this brilliant humorist with a pea brain. The media call him racist in order to silence him, even though he has a white mother and a white wife. Oddly, his theatre was shut down with the help of some of the same politicians we see on our television screens these days praising freedom of expression..
3
"Art is not dangerous!!"
A ridiculous statement. Just reading the papers demonstrates to any objective observer that innocents have being maimed and killed because of the backlash from certain quarters to particular art.
The flaw your comparison of French art and satire versus that of Americans is a too parochial view of the impact of that art. If the message of, say, French art was just confined to France and was just judged by the sensibilities and traditions of the French, it would be ok. But the problem is that French art, American art, etc. is seen and felt around the world among cultures of greatly different traditions and sensibilities. Therein lays the danger.
A ridiculous statement. Just reading the papers demonstrates to any objective observer that innocents have being maimed and killed because of the backlash from certain quarters to particular art.
The flaw your comparison of French art and satire versus that of Americans is a too parochial view of the impact of that art. If the message of, say, French art was just confined to France and was just judged by the sensibilities and traditions of the French, it would be ok. But the problem is that French art, American art, etc. is seen and felt around the world among cultures of greatly different traditions and sensibilities. Therein lays the danger.
1
Humor is always at someone's else expense. Who pays is always the question. It's never a pleasant answer. No one likes to be made fun of, especially if they take themselves seriously.
13
Humor pointed at your beliefs is only at your express if you take yourself too seriously.
It's important to remember that we are only clever primates just down from the trees. We have always been know for throwing excrement at preditors and each other.
It's important to remember that we are only clever primates just down from the trees. We have always been know for throwing excrement at preditors and each other.
3
Excellent essay. Let's not forget Tina Fey's brilliant comedic portrayal of Sarah Palin that helped turn public opinion against her vice presidential aspirations. In a way it was a very powerful, live-action cartoon.
32
A terribly pessimistic piece. And terribly wrong. Art not important? Cartoonists not important? No way!
4
Oddly Mr. Kreider seems so comfortable with the restrictions imposed by our culture that he doesn't even see them. How great to live with no restrictions on free expression! He and his colleagues will gather tonight and make fun of absolutely everyone. "No one will be spared."
But of course there will be subjects left untouched for various reasons, one of which is an unspoken agreement not to poke at certain raw social wounds or propagate vulgar stereotypes that have in other times stirred up dangerous mob actions. For example, they won't be depicting hook-nosed banker villains or casually throwing around "the N word" with racist images for a laugh.
Contrary to the theme of this article, I think speech in our culture can have extremely powerful effects. Consequently, the fantasy of an absolute, self-evident right to say anything anywhere is a childish simplification of our complex social compact, and insistence on its sacredness is a dangerously fundamentalist tendency.
But of course there will be subjects left untouched for various reasons, one of which is an unspoken agreement not to poke at certain raw social wounds or propagate vulgar stereotypes that have in other times stirred up dangerous mob actions. For example, they won't be depicting hook-nosed banker villains or casually throwing around "the N word" with racist images for a laugh.
Contrary to the theme of this article, I think speech in our culture can have extremely powerful effects. Consequently, the fantasy of an absolute, self-evident right to say anything anywhere is a childish simplification of our complex social compact, and insistence on its sacredness is a dangerously fundamentalist tendency.
21
"Oddly Mr. Kreider seems so comfortable with the restrictions imposed by our culture that he doesn't even see them."
I completely agree. There are numerous themes that are off limits to comedians, and we all know what they are though they are not usually acknowledged except by their absence. Conversely, there are safe targets of humor, usually associated with the majority culture: Lampooning fundamentalist Christians or rural "regionals" is always safe; saying "bad words" is safe. American satirists and comedians work in a much narrower field than do those of other countries.
I completely agree. There are numerous themes that are off limits to comedians, and we all know what they are though they are not usually acknowledged except by their absence. Conversely, there are safe targets of humor, usually associated with the majority culture: Lampooning fundamentalist Christians or rural "regionals" is always safe; saying "bad words" is safe. American satirists and comedians work in a much narrower field than do those of other countries.
2
How about left wing wackos too?
1
Who are those? There isn't any Left in the US. There's only Right and Centrist.
5
And yet the NYTimes did not reprint Charlie Hebdo cartoons. In this country political correctness is more important than free speech. I would like to see a cartoon about that.
39
Of course the Hamburger Morgenpost did and got firebombed (by Islamic extremists?).
Is the purpose of the craft to offend or inform? I think inform is the answer. So, while it could offend, if it does not inform at the same time it really is not useful.
11
It is not the purpose of satire to be "useful"; truth seldom is, since it conflicts with the usual self-interests that go back to the birth of time.
3
@ Coolhunter
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." ~ GEORGE BERNARD SHAW
"All great truths begin as blasphemies." ~ GEORGE BERNARD SHAW
2
We don't take art (of any kind) seriously enough in this country for it to be considered dangerous.
13
The corporate-owned press simply would not allow dangerous political cartoons. Any dangerous cartoonist would not have a job. It's that simple. We claim that we allow free speech about almost anything , but the price of a single utterance or image that is outside of the parameters set by those who own and control the means of dissemination of ideas can lead to career death.
The dissemination of pornography and pap by the American media is more acceptable--and profitable than thought provoking cartoons on controversial subjects.
There is no such thing as free speech. There is only profit for the big corporations and economic punishment for the little people.
The dissemination of pornography and pap by the American media is more acceptable--and profitable than thought provoking cartoons on controversial subjects.
There is no such thing as free speech. There is only profit for the big corporations and economic punishment for the little people.
42
Your comment reads like it was written in 1992, or maybe 1962. Since then, the Internet has allowed everyone to have their say - for better or for worse. Setting up a blog is free - hardly 'economic punishment for the little people.'
1
"The brittleness and fragility of ideologies" perhaps explains why the only places in the US where dissident art and literature are so feared that they are systematically banned are university campuses.
18
I agree that the level of resentment and anger toward cartoons here is usually minimal. That said, there were 'underground comics' published in the 1960s which pushed a lot of buttons for those outside the seeming epicenter of the hippie movement, the San Francisco Bay area. Vivid and lurid depictions of gay sex, delighted heterosexual sex, masturbation and several taboo subjects laced many of those pages.
One well known illustrator R. Crumb created comics like nothing I had ever seen, my brother becoming alarmed when after when we wandered into a Berkeley bookstore, both stoned on marijuana, my gales of laughter at Mr. Crumbs cartoons apparently became a little too unrestrained.
One well known illustrator R. Crumb created comics like nothing I had ever seen, my brother becoming alarmed when after when we wandered into a Berkeley bookstore, both stoned on marijuana, my gales of laughter at Mr. Crumbs cartoons apparently became a little too unrestrained.
19
Its not that free speech turns out to be mostly harmless, its that only harmless speech is free. You are free to speak to no effect. People whose speech is perceived as a real threat to those in power are no longer free. Its the basic reality that you only know the cell door is locked when you try to leave.
55
I suppose you might be too young to remember "Piss Christ" by Andres Serrano.
So yes a piece of artwork can generate news and anger here in the US.
But, only among those who believe in fantastical stories from thousands of years ago. I hear John Lennon's song "Imagine" right now and hope one day the world will live as one.
So yes a piece of artwork can generate news and anger here in the US.
But, only among those who believe in fantastical stories from thousands of years ago. I hear John Lennon's song "Imagine" right now and hope one day the world will live as one.
43
And then, there's the opening of the film, "The Last Temptation of Christ". As I recall, there was quite a huge fuss about that.
Is it possible that freedom of speech in all its forms has limits that need to be respected by all humans before they lose their humanity?
Is it possible that freedom of speech in all its forms has limits that need to be respected by all humans before they lose their humanity?
3
Also the Robert Mapplethorpe photos that almost brought down
the National Endowment for the Arts.
the National Endowment for the Arts.
3
The outpouring of emotion over the massacre of these brave men and women goes beyond the idea that this was a senseless tragedy and seems to seep into territory that free speech is becoming a rare commodity and the men who dare speak it are dwindling to a precious few. The new rallying cry here in the states is the exaltation to conform and join the ranks of conformity.
Vive la France