Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Interpretation, Plausible Denial and racially loaded imagery (NYPost cartoon)
Posts
Even if a skinhead tells an off-color joke, he's not necessarily being racist. Just because a regressive troglodyte makes fun of something you're politically in favor of doesn't mean he's being racist.
The guy is obviously a shitheel.
Why the fuck are people picking up on this because of one of his most innocuous cartoons to date? Jesus. Are primates like dog whistles for the easily offended or something? Frankly, even though I think the NY Post is a terrible sleazy right-wing-bordering-on-fascist sensationalist tabloid, they're fully justified in this instance of taking umbrage. Of all the things to get offended over that they or their comic people have done, this is the one that does it?
What the fuck?
I've made my opinion pretty clear, I think. I even gave examples.
Here, I'll get a second opinion:
But, look, obviously the point is that the stimulus bill could have been written by a monkey. The monkey doesn't look like Obama and is in no way suposed to represent him. And it incorporated violence because the monkey in the news story was, in fact, shot -- and the punchline depends on the monkey being dead and thus unavailable to write further legislation. Again, while it's a mediocre joke at best, Obama supporters shouldn't be looking for racial slights around every corner. So far there have been very few of them.
--Jonathan Chait
No, there isn't. He was comparing the Democrats in control of congress to a rabid monkey, and that's pretty fucking obvious.
The intent must not be very clear if other normal and rational people can intuit a racist (or, at the least, a racially insensitive) message out of it.
The problem is that it's not so obvious what he was trying to get at. He didn't put a name tag with Congress on the chimp. And the stimulus is closely tied to Obama. It's not unreasonable to make a connection between the two. It is, however, unreasonable to say that the only people who are seeing racism are the ones always looking for it.
Am I giving him the benefit of the doubt? No.
What I'm doing is being lazy. I'm not willing to do a naked back flip through a flaming hoop to magic a cartoon into something it's not.
No I'm pretty sure that's exactly what you're doing
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Regardless of his intentions, I have no problem with people calling him a racist bigot. There is no way, absolutely no fucking way, he didn't know exactly what that image was going to elicit. He's a cartoonist, probably an educated individual. He deals in imagery for a living. I wouldn't doubt that he deliberately did this specifically to drum up some controversy.
The people that are intuiting racism from this aren't so far removed from people seeing Jesus in a grilled cheese, and I have no doubt that they're gonna call themselves normal and rational. The guy has a history. It's been posted in this thread. Newsflash: He's not a real subtle guy. If he wanted to make a connection to Obama, it would have been pretty fucking obvious, nametag-style. He's not making a connection to Obama. He's making a connection to a shot-dead rabid monkey that was in the news.
I also don't see how this is racially insensitive. Again, are primates dog-whistles for racial insensitivity? What does racially insensitive even mean in this context? That hyperintuitive types are going to get offended at references to primates?
I'm taking it at face value. It's not so hard. I think a lot of people are seeing this upside down and backwards through a double-secret racism filter though.
but the notion that there is a 'most correct' interpretation is not. of course the most correct interpretation is the one that the author intended... and then we argue about what the author intended.
Is that really so hard to see?
You're making the mistake of assuming that the only message that can be taken from a work of art is that of the artist's original intent. Additionally, you make the mistake of assuming you know the artist's intentions. All you actually do know is your personal take on the work. Saying that others are being unreasonable by not coming to the conclusion you did regarding racist aspects of the work is not a commentary on the work but on your interpretation.
Sure. I think that's pretty obvious from his history.
I disagree with this. Particularly if he's racially insensitive.
peoples idea of what face value 'is' differs.
It's insensitive because there is a possibility that he is drawing Obama as a monkey (or ape ... don't do this).
Drawing Obama as an ape for doing something stupid is not exactly the same as drawing Bush as an ape for doing something stupid. It doesn't mean you're a racist, but if you're aware of the context and you do it anyway then it shows that you don't really care if some people see it that way, hence you're insensitive to the racial history of the imagery.
In short, yes I think that primates are dog whistles for racial insensitivity.
Most correct is also misleading. It's possible for an artist to unintentionally introduce themes into their work. Honestly, it comes down to each individual's take on the work. I'm not going to say that any one particular take is right.
how about most accurate? does that work? i hate trying to find words to describe phrases.
it means different things to different people is fine, but thats different from saying "the artist intended for me to interpret it the way i did" that has more to do with accuracy...
of course without actually being the artist, well never know what his true intention really was. we can guess though.
Gosh, I guess I'm not willing to take the plunge into actively seeking the metaphore in absolutely everything. Yes, sometimes a primate is a reference to the idea that black people aren't so evolved. Sometimes they're just what they are.
You're suggesting that if Georgia O'Keefe had painted a big, juicy watermelon, it could conceivably be taken as racist because watermelons are code for a regressive view of blacks. That's retarded. If something is racist, intent is of paramount fucking importance.
I've asserted my personal take. I'm suggesting that sometimes there isn't so much code to be found in a cartoon that's as obvious as this one. I noted that the artist in question isn't subtle like a knife and that if he were being racist we wouldn't have to be listening for dog whistles. I'm asserting that my personal take makes sense, and that the "he's racist because monkeys are code for blacks-aren't-evolved" takes a lot of hoop jumping that doesn't make any sense.
Sure, you can imagine it has a personal meaning to you, but there are very small degrees where this is allowable.
If I said Robert Frost's poems were only ever about what it was like to have sex with his mom, I would not be "free to have my opinions." I would be an idiot.
Oh, I'm sorry, was that a picture of Obama in that cartoon?
im not sure what it is, because chimpanzees look like this and they do not look exactly the same.
i am also unsure what those creatures on the left are as they clearly don't have correct human proportions and yet are speaking english.
Your example isn't similar to this one. I mean, a watermelon by itself is meaningless. But if she painted a slice of watermelon in black hands, it would be reasonable if someone took exception to it.
And the thing is, it isn't so much that this cartoon by itself is indicative of racism, it's that this is one in a line of work that can be interpreted as bigoted. Given that and the context of the cartoon, I think you're being unreasonable in insisting that intuiting bigotry from this cartoon is "hoop-jumping". What you call "hoop-jumping" I see as a reasonable conclusion that could be drawn form the information provided by the cartoon.
Something about desire and fire I think.
I initially thought that he was trying to say a monkey wrote the stimulus bill, but it became pretty clear that there were some racial undertones.
personally i think his characature of obama is more offensive than the [strike]monkey[/strike] ape was....
Again, this is mistake in assuming that other meanings can't be drawn from a work of art. I mean, do we really think that the architect behind the Washington Monument was also secretly thinking that it was a great phallic symbol? Whether or not he did, that's another meaning that an observer may take away from the monument.
EDIT: Also, there's nothing wrong with having a debate about different interpretations, but dismissing them out of hand because they don't correspond to yours is wrong. I just don't like the idea of shutting down that debate by saying that people who think it might be racist are intentionally looking for racism or are unreasonable.
I thought this as well, as it draws from a bunch of racist caricature.
he managed to get
- a hamster
- a disco picture
- an umbrella drink
- his trademark foot up in the air for gays
- limp wrists
- a hankey
- flowered wallpaper
- an AIDs ribbon
- and last but not least a teddy bear with what might be a dildo
in a single anti-gay cartoon. He's managed to get a sheep in most of his anti-gay cartoons including this oneQEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Let me tell you about video games. Let me tell you about Homestuck
I'm not trying to shut down a debate, nor am I at all times saying my own interpretation is the right one.
But I absolutely think that in many, if not most, cases, there is a clear most correct interpretation. It's usually pretty clear what the artist/director/designer/writer/etc was trying to say, and anything too far from that is, plainly, wrong.
You can like it to mean something else, or even think it might work better under this other light. But it doesn't make it more meaningful or more correct than what was clearly the artist's original meaning.
10. the lisp
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
You can just see the hamster wheel. He's from the gay = bestiality/pedophile school
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Right, so the question is, given the information presented, what's a reasonable interpretation. It's reasonable to see racism in the strip, otherwise such a large number of people wouldn't be making that same assessment.
So if Obama is the creator of the stimulus bill would that make the pregnant ass in that last comic Michelle?
This and more in Mysteries from the Other Dominion.
The idea that the monkey is Obama (and not, you know, the actual monkey that was shot), makes no sense. Why would they then have to go find someone else to write the next stimulus? I mean, wouldn't Biden be President then? There wouldn't be any "finding" to do, and regardless, who writes the stimulus would not even be a relevant or sensible question at all if Obama was shot.
The only thing that makes sense is that the "joke" is that Dems went and found a monkey to write the stimulus, but now the cops shot the monkey attacking someone, so they have to go find someone else to write it.
I get the racist interpretation... but if that's what you saw first then your brain has been hacked. Think harder.
EDIT: I see all the other examples of him being less than politically correct. He loads up a comic about Foley with little trappings of homosexual stereotypes. He draws offensively exaggerated charicatures of arab terrorists. He travels the well-trodden slippery slope of homosexuality and bestiality. But none of that compares to what you are suggesting now. None of that is double-meaning, none of it meant to be hidden or amiguous or confusing, none of it requires a highly questionable alternate interpretation of the comic, and none of it nearly so egregious as calling Obama a monkey. So no, you aren't really making much of a case with any of that, either.
Holy crap, that's amazing.