FORUM
ANTI-SEMITISM OR LEGITIMATE CRITICISM?
See Focus for our editorial
Comic art can take on a life of its own
From what I've heard there are parts of the world where
a Cartoonist can be "drawn and quartered" murdered and "hung
out to dry" for what he has drawn. In America, where freedoms are
valued, this seems so Middle-Aged, similar to the Winston-Salem Witch Trials,
yet it does occur with the realm of the 21ST Century. Luckily, in the Grand
Old USA, this is not true. Cartoonists are heroes. Many have fans; high
paying jobs for the pictures they draw; for their take on a current subject
matter.
No matter how terrifying our world has become when individuals
will blow themselves up for a cause, Americans are downright lucky and indeed
privileged to be able to think freely, draw freely and to inspire freely.
We hail those who are artistically inclined to draw upon their Inner Reserves
to illustrate the present day, yet ever-changing socio-economic and political
landscape that lays before us.
Thus, enter Abe Foxman, the National Director of
the Anti-Defamation League, who probably just a few weeks previously was
asked by the Assn. of American Editorial Cartoonists to speak at their annual
convention in Washington, DC. He must have been thrilled to have been
invited but who exactly knows what his stand is on Art Cartooning
Comic Art or anything for that matter. After all, low and behold,
there are those individuals who do not even read or peruse the Funnies'
Section in the daily newspapers. What is/was Foxman's background? And
above all else, what is/was Foxman's agenda for even being there podium
side? What are/were his motives?
Does he incorporate/enjoy Comics 1) regularly or 2) if
at all?
Did he think to ask what the forum was to be about that
he'd be speaking at or was he just honing his chops by deciding to collect
some of the top Cartoonists' depictions of Life after 9-11? By collecting
the toons he did, at least, he made an effort to address his audience.
Indeed, in his rundown of what he calls Anti-Semitic Images,
he picks some mighty powerful cartoons to "scrutinize." Some
may use the term: lamblast. We all have our own VO: Valued Opinions.
Undoubtedly, Abe has his. Two questions arise:
1. Are these HIS own opinions; or
2. Are these opinions those of his groups The
Anti-Defamation League?
Those two questions, if answered, would help tremendously.
We can only guess.
What is seen as vulgar and/or crucial to one man may seem
trivial or useless by another. Everyone interprets his/her surroundings
differently. A Cartoonist will interpret his environment; draw it; draw
upon it; modify it and then let his audience read, misread it and/or transcend
the given message. Misconstruing is not only a legal act(ion), it runs
rampant in the Comic Art Field as well, and all lively Arts for that matter.
Let us not forget that Comic Art is Art and although judgmental
and individualistic, what's perceived by one man need not necessarily be
accepted or acceptable to another and/or his society. Enter: Societies
where Cartoonists are put to death for drawing a simple Toon, that "deep
down to the core" is nothing but that.
To really understand Foxman's Speech, Mr. Foxman's stature,
tone of voice and demeanor had to have been studied out while he gave his
presentation. He did realize the importance of the Art Form and how history
is laden with symbolism (both hidden and overt) that makes people tick
the way they do (or don't) today.
The best point Abe Foxman made is that he proved that Comic
Art takes on a life of its own after it hits the page and has the power
to influence great packs of people. Whether people are anti-Semitic, Spicks,
use the N-Word, are given the cruel names of: Pakis, Chinx and/or wherever
else, it appears quite clearly that the world can not live as one, when
small family units cannot get along. The family is the smallest microcosm
of the entire world order. But that is my personal opinion and not the
real topic of this heated linear debate. Unfortunately, to "live
and let live" in peace and harmony is not in many diabolical terrorist
agendas. Comic Art is tremendously therapeutic as a healing factor in returning
to humor and (a certain degree of) normalcy to the masses left in shock
and grief. I've seen this phenomena happen thousands of times since my
Creation, Development and Promotion of Cartoonists Against Crime ©91
in 1991 and its branch: Cartoonists Against Terrorism ©01 in September
of 2001.
It often amazes me why doctors just cancel out: "Take
2 aspirins and call me in the AM" to "Pick up a newspaper and
read the Comic Section." Laughter is the better cure and is less addicting
to a degree.
No matter what a Toon reads as, it's the individual's interpretation
that s/he takes, no one else's. The Bottom Line lies in the interpretation
and what has been seen and portrayed to the viewer. What's funny to an
Australian may not be funny to an American and vica versa. Countless examples
of nationalistic Comic Art express this point as well. Not everyone will
"get" understand or appreciate the given Toon. Practice
may help improve the style; not necessarily the subject matter. With mass
communication and high technology, we can become at-TOON-ed to Comic Art
from across the world.
What a great benefit that has proven to be.
Bottom Line: Although it is too cool being hated, but
it definitely draws upon some controversial, much to be talked about subject
matters. Food For Fodderas many reporters and columnists label the "movement."
Cartoonists possess a skill that abbreviates the situation
and places strong and vehement thoughts in(to) a box, on a page as an informational
and entertainment tool for others to see. Hampering, imprisoning and barricading
this ability is unconstitutional, yet in some locations, the critics (governments
and law-makers) are fearful of its possible repercussions and therefore,
take action that is seen as uncivilized by Western Standards.
The editorial cartoonists, Paul Conrad and Nick
Anderson received extra special attention and PR from both Foxman for
picking out their toons that he fashioned into a self-made booklet called:
"Anti-Semitic Images in the Media" and from Joe Szabo,
the Editor/Publisher of WittyWorld, who thought this experience was controversial
enough to editorialize and place on his website. You can't BUY exposure
like that.
Maybe there's a new career ahead for Abe Foxman as a publisher
of his own Comic Art Business or as a critic for a leading Funnies' operation.
He evidently feels strongly for suppressed groups and is artsy enough to
create a 40-page mini exhibition booklet. The man did his homework. He taught
us that underlying every pictoral there are indeed a 1000 opinions, if not
more.
And like everything else: This too shall pass hopefully,
Mankind won't.
Adrienne Sioux Koopersmith
Founder/Creator/Curator:
Cartoonists Against Crime ©1991 & Cartoonists Against Terrorism
©2001
Chicago, IL, USA
Symbols may be subject to personal interpretation, but that does not
limit a cartoonist's right to use them
I feel that cartoonists have a valid claim to use (historical,
political, religious, corporate, and other easily identifiable) images
as they are the most potent. The bottom line is appropriateness. The explosive
milieu that we are in simply heightens the potency of these symbols. Interpretation
resides on the most primal and personal level--the understanding could be
twisted or benign depending on the personal "reading" of these
images. If someone chose to read it the other way, against the grain of
what we call "freedom to express ourselves," then that would not
contribute to a healthy discourse by which a particular cartoons was trying
to evince. An exchange such as this is patterned to seek solutions and it
is a truth, (with mirror like clarity, as in the case of Conrad's
twin minaret towers cartoon) well told. There will come a time that us cartoonists
would have a dearth of symbols and icons to work on, simply because they've
been invested with meanings other than what they really stand for.
Miel Prudencio Rosales, Jr.
The Strait Times
Singapore
Trying on the shoes of the Jews
I read your article. I thought it was well-written and
brought up an interesting point. I did not know that Arabs were Semites.
I confess that I am not especially well-versed on the situations in the
Middle East, but I do think it is sad that our world continues to be divided
by hatred. I can understand Jewish people getting offended at the cartoons,
but on the same token, I hope these same people are also offended at the
actions of the Israeli AND Palestinian regimes. How can you not be offended
at all that killing of innocents? I have not taken sides in the issues of
the Middle East because I believe that thousands of years of history should
be studied before one can be truly informed.
If the shoe were on my foot, and a cartoon came out that
exploited recent events surrounding the Catholic Church, I would be offended.
I realize this is less of a political motive than the cartoons currently
in question, but I am trying to envision a similar situation. 99% of priests
are clean and pious, just like probably 99% of Jewish people haven't killed
any Arabs. However, I would also realize that a small handful of ex-priests
have been convicted. No matter how awful I feel the depiction to be, I would
grudgingly admit the cartoonist his right to draw. But I would never look
at his cartoons again. I would feel that he is not a Catholic sympathizer,
and that his actions were aimed at damaging the Catholic Church. Maybe this
is how some Jewish people feel about those political cartoons.
Hajnalka Klieman
Oakland, CA, USA
Moral outrage can't overwhelm the truth
I've tried for years to make a case for the appropriate
use of political, cultural and religious symbols within cartoons. I agree
wholeheartedly with Mr. Foxman that the use of Nazi imagery in reference
to Israeli policy, or any comparison of Israel's occupation with the genocide
of the the Third Reich is wholly out of line, and it makes no difference
if it's a Pulitzer Prize winner who is doing it. Nobody in his or her right
mind believes that Israel's intent is the total extermination of the Palestinian
people (if it is, they're doing a lousy job of it), and to draw that comparison,
using the very symbol under which the Jews were targeted, is such an affront
that any thinking cartoonist ought to avoid the practice.
Similarly, the use of religious symbols such as the Torah
or the Western Wall is hazardous at best--Israel is a secular state, not
a theocracy (despite Mr. Zogby's [President of the Arab-American
Institute] mistaken assertions to the contrary) and the use of those symbols
to describe the secular actions of a state are inappropriate, in my opinion.
I do think Mr. Foxman stepped over the line in a couple of cases, but I
generally agree that cartoons need to focus on the issues at hand and not
descend into cultural slanders (and this goes for drawings of Arabs and
others, as well). Many of the cartoons that don't respect these boundaries
may reasonably be called anti-Semitic.
As a journalist, I don't think we serve anyone's cause
when our work reaches the point at which moral outrage overwhelms the truth--and
this from the practitioner of a craft which is best when we exaggerate.
I thought that Mr. Foxman's emotionalism was over the top,
and I was appalled by his treatment of Mr. Arafeh [Palestinian cartoonist
present at the convention]. I have expressed my disappointment to Mr. Foxman
and I am awaiting his reply.
Ed Stein
Rocky Mountain News
Denver, CO, USA
| 
