Illustration: "The Censor" a woodcut by Isidore
Adolphe Gerard, Paris, 1840
"Dictators of the right and the left fear
the political cartoonist more than they do the atomic bomb. No totalitarian
government can afford to be ridiculed"
-Art Buchwald-
An
introduction by Joe Szabo
When, in 1993, I first let the
word out that I was compiling censored cartoons from around the
world for publication, I received a surprisingly harsh and skeptical
reaction from a Berlin based German cartoonist. He doubted that
I will ever be able to publish the more liberal and more open-minded
cartoons of Europe that are "misjudged in the United States
as toilet art or pornography." He continued that the few cartoons
that do get censored on the old continent are even more inconceivable
for publication by "prudish American standards." Indeed,
I can't argue with his assertion that the U.S. culture would not
tolerate jokes about religion, gender, age, or disabled people.
It would also have a problem with tasteless depictions of sacred
symbols. What my friend was referring to is a cultural difference
that is not at all unique to certain groups of people, but clearly
exists among classes within any, otherwise, ethnically and religiously,
homogenous society. It's the difference between sophistication and
boorishness. Or taste, if you will. To make his point, he sent me
samples by cartoonists mostly from France, England, and the Benelux
countries. A glance at the artworks was enough to understand that
there is a great confusion out there. What some people call censorship
is nothing else than sound editorial judgment.
I grew up under communism, and as a result of
that experience, few people cherishes freedom of expression more
than I do. But looking at the selection that I was presented with,
I feel grateful for there are editors. We need the good ones badly.
The images, no doubt, were meant to challenge the notion of my freedom
in the United States, but to me were simply distasteful and lacking
the qualities of a constructive and effective visual commentary.
Yes, they were shocking, but that is not what sociopolitical cartoons
are nor should be about. At least, not when the shock value can
be reached only by cheap vulgarity.
There should be no problem giving
the ax to a cartoon that shows the Pope holding a cross made out
of penises or a woman pictured as making love to a pig. Nor do I
think that a pedophile letting an infant use his penis for a pacifier
or a pregnant woman feeding a dog with her newborn baby is funny.
And if this is not enough, my skeptical friend added that before
he would send me his "baddest" cartoons, first he wanted
to know if I would publish any of the above mentioned works, which,
by the way, have all seen print in Europe.
 I
am not defending prudishness, but the media has to be a reflection
of society. Journalists don't write, cartoonists don't draw for
themselves. Their job is a public service and as such, they have
a responsibility to adhere to the rules of decency. In 1994, I defended
my choice of putting Boris Yeltzin with a soft, bent missile in
place of his penis on the cover of a political cartoon book I edited.
Sexual images, if tastefully done, do have a place in art and they
can be extremely powerful. In this case, the famed Portuguese cartoonist
António Moreira Antunes successfully made a
strong statement about Russia's declining military power at the
time.
And with this, we have arrived at what
real censorship is. It's about the reaction to fear that political personages
and establishments feel through the manifestation of powerful visual commentary
by artistic poison pen men.
Since the birth of political cartooning, there
has been resentment towards the genre and its cultivators. In the
late 1800s, the American Thomas Nast's cartoons landed a
corrupt New York politician in jail. Boss Tweed, the subject of
Nest's cartoons, summed up in a desperate outcry why cartoons pose
such a threat to people of power: "...I don't care so much
about what the papers write about me; most of my constituency can't
read, but damn it, they can see pictures!" Although Nast received
many threats on his life, he actually suffered no physical harm.
Not so, for a group of Polish cartoonists, who were executed on
May 27, 1944 for drawing against Nazi Fascism. Turkish cartoonist
Sema Ündeger's cartoons were ripped off the wall and
partially destroyed by fundamentalists, while Turhan Selçuk
of the same country was tortured by the military junta there in
1970. Cartoonists were still jailed in many countries in the 70s,
80s, and even the 90s, for doing their jobs. The Soviet Union, Uruguay,
Bulgaria, and the Middle East were among the least tolerant.
A Palestinian, Naji Salim al-Ali was shot to death for his powerful
visual commentaries in the mid-eighties in London. In a much less violent
but ugly assault, American Pulitzer winner Tony Auth was attacked
in his own office at the Philadelphia Inquirer for a cartoon he drew
about Israel.
Somehow, we got used to the fact that facing violence had been a calculated
risk for courageous cartoonists in the past. Accepting the same around the
turn of the second millennium is much more difficult, but the cold fact
is that cartoonists and their editors still get imprisoned, tortured, and
even killed for doing their jobs. It's very unfortunate that a new wave
of intolerance arose during the last decade involving political cartoons,
comics, cartoonists, cartoon shows, and even the subject of a cartoon.
The facts on these pages are signaling that cartoons, particularly satirical
drawings, are taken seriously, thus they are a very powerful medium of expression;
that they are perhaps the only medium that successfully competes with television,
at least when it comes to effective communication and the intellectual provocation
of the mind.
The stories are also telling us, however, that society has many weak spots
around the world, which, heavily influenced by local culture and deep religious
tradition, are vastly unprepared for progressive thoughts, logic, and tolerance.
Luckily, intimidation does not work in the long run. Cartoonists will continue
to draw with acid ink, because if they don't, they will cease to be cartoonists.
As long as they keep serving the public interest, and do it with their best
effort, cartoons will be stirring emotions. And thus, until the world becomes
more tolerant towards different ideas, and will understand that cartoons
are one of the best means society has to guide and control itself, cartoonists
will continue to be targets of anger. Cracking down on their abusers, along
with safeguarding free and intelligent expression, can only benefit the
world's thirst for a so much desired better quality of life.
Joe Szabo is on the Board of Directors
of the UNESCO sanctioned
Commission for Freedom and Justice Through
Humour
A watchdog organization for human rights violations
against humorists and cartoonists |
