By stating that the New Yorker cover was a less than successful cartoon, I was not taking the side of The New Yorker Cover Haters, as opposed to The New Yorker Cover Defenders. These internet controversies seem to split into binary camps that throw things at each other until the next outrage occurs. So there are a couple of views on the cartoon floating around that I want to specifically disavow:
The cover shouldn't have been published because people could see the image and be less likely to vote for Obama.
This is a ridiculous argument -- art should be judged for what it is, not on its perceived effect on the election. We're satirisits, and just because we tend to sympathize with a certain political view more of the time than not, doesn't mean we're advocates. ”Your so-called art does not advance our cause, comrade!”
The cover shouldn't have been published because right wing nuts are going to use the image to swift-boat Obama.
This is just dumb. Do cartoonists really have to worry about how the images they create could be misapporpriated by bad people? Every time I draw a picture, for whatever purpose, should I pause and wonder whether the forces of evil could possibly use it out of context in a nefarious scheme, thus saving the $250 it would cost to hire an illustrator to draw exactly they want? I'll only draw Obama with an American flag waving behind him, standing in amber fields of grain.
Comments