Either this week or next week, I plan to write a column about the issue of jealousy. Or envy. The two are not the same, obviously, but not everyone knows that. The reason I bring this up, the reason I’ve been thinking about it, is that I have mentioned the jobs and awards that certain cartoonists have earned in conjunction with my criticism of their work. Am I jealous of them? Not of their careers, certainly not of their work, but I do think it’s relevant to point out when people get praise that they don’t deserve at the same time that others who do better work are ignored. It shows that the system isn’t working. In the meantime, I thought I would give some critiques of cartoons that came out over the last day or two.
Here my complaint is about the format. This sort of metaphor using big block letters is so out of date, it’s hard to imagine that anybody under the age of 75 would be moved by it.
10 Comments.
This is tribalism, and bullshit. There’s no objective criteria when it comes to “art”. What Ted’s really saying is “me and my alternative cartooning pals think this stuff sucks and shouldn’t be praised”. So what? The cartoonists on the other side can do the same thing.
Take music. Ted likes punk bullshit like X and the Sex Pistols from the 70s and 80s. Ted thinks jazz sucks. Personally, I think punk is lame tired shit that’s as phony baloney as Madonna. Johnny Rotten and Sid Vicious were little whiny bitches who just wanted to be famous, like the Beatles, like Led Zep. Punk was a “me too”, nothing more. Jazz on the other hand IS revolutionary. Jazz shook shit up in a major way, especially for black Americans. It was the music of revolution when it was in its prime.
Still — it’s not objective. Ted doesn’t like jazz and never will. He likes shitty punk music played by non-musicians who’s greatest talents are looking bad and smelling worse. Me? I like jazz.
No. It is objectively true that Bill Day sucks and is a plagiarist. It is objectively true that I am better than him.
Sorry, mr. postmodernist.
I rather took the Bish piece to be riffing on the ingratitude of those who would (hypothetically) take welfare and then commit acts of terrorism. A much more straightforward message, and one explicitly referenced, rather than alluded to in a most indirect fashion.
Ted,
Congratulations on being maybe one of three other people in the goddamned world who understands that jealousy and envy are not synonyms.
I find it interesting that the GWB library looks like the student union at my undergraduate college.
Bish’s cartoon suffers from a lack of logic, as well as the old double-standard. How many photos have we all seen of American bombers filled with American bombs with something written on the side like “From Uncle Sam with Love” or some such? That, of course, is just good old corn-fed American can-doism. But when the other side tries to rub our faces in it, well, that’s just completely unacceptable and beyond the pale?
What, exactly, is so surprising that a terrorist would take welfare? Isn’t that one of the first rules of warfare (I’m pretty sure Sun-Tzu mentions it). If you are at war in a foreign land, don’t use your own resources. Live off the land of the enemy first.
Would this classify Bish’s work as propaganda rather than political commentary?
@Alex,
Sun Tzu did indeed say forage off of the enemy. It’s one of his primary rules of warfare.
However, the welfare bashing is so old-fashioned in a time when one in seven adults and one in three children is on food stamps. And as Ted would say, it’s a cowardly cop-out when cartoonists do it. There’s no moral courage in criticizing poor people, foreigners, and other so-called “undesirables”. The point is to criticize those in power, not the powerless. Especially those powerful in your own country.
Another example of a cop-out is showing foreign leaders with blood on their hands. As if Obama doesn’t have blood on his.
@Ted: Explain how it is objectively true that Bill Day sucks and that you are better than him. Simply saying so doesn’t make it objectively true, it’s just more opinion. I’ve already explained in detail how there is no objective criteria that you can cite to make your claim, just opinion. So cite facts to support your claim. Use evidence.
I don’t even know what calling me a “postmodernist” means, don’t care either. Labels, memes, tribalism, etc … I couldn’t care less about any of that nonsense.
It’s objectively true that he self-plagiarizes. And THAT SUCKS! If I follow a cartoonist, I don’t want to see the same drawing with a new cation half a dozen times. It’s boring. I’ve never seen Ted self-plagiarize…so I’ll give him that one.
I think what Ted meant by calling you a post-modernist is that you raise relativism to the level of an absolute… at least in this context. Me, I don’t think you have the wit to be post-modern.
I think your comments about Randy Bish are a bit of a stretch, or maybe you are looking too hard for a hidden meaning or agenda in the cartoon. It seems fairly obvious that he is illustrating the fact that they came here, accepted welfare from us to live, and then bit the hand that fed them. If they didn’t like where they found themselves, then they should have gone home – they never really qualified for the asylum we gave them, as we have learned that they had a home to go back to, and I don’t think we should have let them come here in the first place. Now their mother is crying and whining that America took her babies – Bullshit!
No response from Ted here. Ok, try this on:
Punk objectively sucks.
Jazz is objectively great.
The objective criteria for great musics is a mastery of the three main components (melody, harmony, and rhythm), in conjunction with demonstrable skill in composition — most notably, the ability to assemble those components in a novel and interesting way, and if possible an innovative way.
As such, crap like X and the Sex Pistols fail, and fail badly. Sid Vicious had zero mastery of his instrument, couldn’t play nor sing in tune, and basically showed he had no interest in music other than the attention he could receive by being on a stage. His fellow musicians should have spoken out against this crap because while Sid and the gang were making lots of money, great jazz musicians were barely able to get by, greats like Charles Mingus — a true genius an revolutionary in music history.
In short, I do think it’s relevant to point out when people get praise that they don’t deserve (Sex Pistols) at the same time that others who do better work are ignored (Charles Mingus). It shows that the system isn’t working.
Sorry, Ex: fail.
Punk and jazz attempt to accomplish different musical statements. Yes, they’re both music. But they’re different genres.
Your analogy is parallel to comparing editorial cartoons to comic strips. They’re different genres with different goals.
I’m comparing apples to apples. Sure, different cartoonists have different objectives, but all editorial cartoons – by definition – are graphic commentary on politics and current events. The cartoons I say suck suck OBJECTIVELY because they literally make no political commentary whatsoever. Not dumb commentary. Not unoriginal commentary. None.
It’s like this:
Michael Phelps is a great swimmer, but he will be a shitty runner if he tries to swim down a track. Objectively.