So there's no reason for me to explicate the now infamous Obamas The New Yorker cover. The editor in charge of making the call to run it has explained it perfectly in the CNN link I've inserted in the title of this post.
I'm embarrassed that too many Americans are too stupid to see the cover for what it is (satire) and that uber-liberals and the self-rightious are crying foul over the image even when they recognize it as satire. Not that the cover pokes fun of the Obamas -- it pokes fun of many Americans' fears about what they seem to represent (but do not) -- but do we want a president we can't poke fun of? I don't. Satire goes too far when it examines African American presidential candidates? Is that the real issue here? Feh! Once again we have folks too quick to point fingers. Cartooning and lampooning have a rich history of making social and political statements via satire, and the day the USA imposes too much restriction over satire will be the day Democracy died (again).
I haven't expressed my political leaning in this blog, but I will say I was pretty excited about that Alex Ross painting that was making the rounds a few weeks ago. And, with that being said, I have no problem with the cover and am proud of the magazine for running it. Controversy and satire should lead to intelligent discussion, and intelligent discussion should lead to better insight and understanding, and better insight and understanding is just another way of looking at being better educated.
So that's more a rant than an explication.
No comments:
Post a Comment