Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[iron_felix]

One of my friends from high school is an editorial cartoonist for the UGA student newspaper.  The above image is one of his cartoons, which ran in yesterday's paper.  I find it incredibly poignant, and when first shown the image I likened it to Mike Luckovich's 9/11 drawing with the weeping Statue of Liberty.  The UGA student body's reaction was somewhat different to mine - namely, going completely apeshit and flooding the newspaper editors with letters of outrage and demands that the artist responsible be fired.  Thankfully, the editors were more sensible than that, although they weren't too pleased with the volume of hate mail they received (being a left-wing political cartoonist, most of his work offends a fairly large demographic of UGA students anyway, but not nearly to this extent).  He gave a clarification for the drawing, if not a full-fledged apology, that ran in today's paper.  The throngs have yet to disperse.

I have a pretty thick skin, so I may not be the best person to gauge how offensive something is, but I don't think what it is this time.  I wasn't just unperturbed by this cartoon, I was very deeply moved.  I think it captures perfectly the stark horror of the shootings.  I am puzzled as to why such a large number of people completely misinterpreted it.

So, Party People, I submit this to you, as a diverse audience endowed with (hopefully) more understanding of the ways of the world than the average undergrad, and singularly well-suited to the critique of works of cartoonery (I'm not sure what the real word for that is) - does this offend, or not?  Is this drawing really in poor taste, and I, my friend, and the editors who allowed it to be printed have simply failed to realize it?  Or do the folks down there (more specifically, students at UGA) just not get it?

[theinevitable]

I don't know. I found it... not offensive. i can see what he is going for, but I can't say I am personally moved.

The weeping statue of liberty was... beautiful. I loved that cartoon, and I felt like it captured a lot.

of course, I'm sure everywhere else got just as much (or less) hate mail regarding that cartoon as our newspaper is. After all-- The Charlotte Observer is obviously as the most liberal newspaper in America, full of bias and hate for the US. Just ask a kid in my 11th grade English class, who consistently stated this opinion.

So, no. I don't really find this offensive. I can see how other people might misinterpret this though.

edit: apparently almost every political cartoonist in the US did a variation on that image (of the statue of liberty). I cannot find the original one I saw... which was way better than the ones I -can- find.

[linnea]

I think it's pretty offensive. I can see how weeping, traumatized people would be outraged at that drawing. The way that he uses the school logo with a smoking gun...well, the symbol of the school means a lot. I read that the dean or president of the university was devastated by the attacks - he was a student there, then faculty, and now the head of the whole thing. I think he would be crushed to see the school's logo parodied in a manner that equate the school with a gunman's violence. Although from what you describe, this was NOT his intent, it looks like he's glorifying it with a drawing that looks Hollywoodesque. I don't like it.

[RMJ12345]

I like it - I think it does capture something of the brutality of the attacks. I was also moved by this.

I can see where people would be offended, though, and I question the editor in publishing this so soon after the attacks.

[jaydub]

I hate to be pedantic about this, but the smoke is coming out too low for the barrel...

Who am I kidding.  I am the very definition of a pedant.

[Doc]

I don't get it. I'm unfamiliar with the school logo so that's part of it but I think the black background combined with the gun made it look too 'trying to be cool' rather than sorrowful.
That said I didn't think it was offensive.
I think the number of comments after that article the are  (continued) and go on and on is pretty offensive.  Good old misdirected anger.


Edited: To remove all 'maybe' 'i guess' and 'kind of' what am I 13?

[pmcd9]

I hate to be pedantic about this, but the smoke is coming out too low for the barrel...

Who am I kidding.  I am the very definition of a pedant.

I was going to point out that it's the wrong caliber.

[side_show]

Yeah, I think artistically the statement of this image is a little muddled, and if you're going to make a political statement with a cartoon about such an issue.. you know, put more thought into it and be concise.  I look at it and I'm confused:  I don't understand what the artist was trying to say.  Why the school logo?  This isn't really a cartoon, but rather just a reinvented logo.  And a logo is a branding/identifying marker... Did he understand he'd created an icon that implies the school's identity is marred by the shooting?  I guess that's sort of a statment, but not a powerful one, or one that needed to be made in an image.  Why boil the issue down to just the school logo and a smoking gun?  Isn't imposing the gun as a central symbol over simplifying?  I don't really find it offensive, but rather unclear, and I guess sort of unnecessary.  The statue of liberty cartoon expressed a clear notion of the nation's emotional state, where as this image doesn't make a clear statement about anything.

[theinevitable]

oof. overreactions are so fun. Personally, if I misunderstand something someone is trying to say, and they explain what they meant... I don't suggest that they be fired? Normally my reaction would be "oh, maybe explain yourself better next time."

[linnea]

I don't read comments. Especially on blogs that I like, or on news articles. I'm just sick of weeding through the troll bullshit. It's not worth my time.

[V-Adore]

Yeah, throw me in on the "not offended, but not really getting the intended communication here" bandwagon. It's the Virginia Tech logo, and a gun... and? What is the intended communication here? There's no emotional indicator at all, and as such I'm really confused. It seems to be (clumsily) communicating a fact, at best.

[pmcd9]

Sometimes, guns in the classroom is fun!

[KeithHernandez]

Yeah, throw me in on the "not offended, but not really getting the intended communication here" bandwagon. It's the Virginia Tech logo, and a gun... and? What is the intended communication here? There's no emotional indicator at all, and as such I'm really confused. It seems to be (clumsily) communicating a fact, at best.

[slink]

Not sure I'd go as far as crass, and while I'm not offended by it, it doesn't exactly seem tactful. It would be like the Statue of Liberty holding a burning plane, or one crashing into it.
I'm not offended, for sure.

No, maybe it is just crass... Having thought about how it actually compares to the Statue of Liberty one.

[Ben-San]

To me, the immediate message is "Virginia Tech is a place that people go to get shot at", and is about on par with "Virginia Tech? More like Killin'ya Tech, am I right, people?"