Barry Blitt Defends His New Yorker Cover Art Of Obama

Barry Blitt is the artist behind this week's very controversial New Yorker cover of Barack and Michelle Obama. Via email, I asked him to respond to those who feel that his work was offensive, and to explain his own personal feelings about the Obamas. Here's what he wrote:

I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.

And in retrospect, given the outcry, is he glad he made the art?

"Retrospect? Outcry?" he wrote. "The magazine just came out ten minutes ago, at least give me a few days to decide whether to regret it or not..."

Rachel Sklar has much more.

Update: Three of Blitt's previous cover pieces are below. Note the Ahmadinejad bathroom shot, probably the most provocative recent New Yorker cover prior to the current one.

Comments

[WWJD2]

Barry--I love your cartoon of Barry! Keep up the great work.

[eden4barack08]

I look at the other three covers on this thread, plus some other ones I have from past editions, and there's just no comparison. 
Barry Blitt, you failed miserably with this one! Stop using elitist excuses such as your readers "get it", therefore it's ok. A lot of your readers, I'm..err, I WAS one of them, "get it" and STILL don't like it. You delivered NO SATIRE, NO IRONY, NO JOKE, or you delivered them so poorly they failed to arrive. "Get it"? All you did was draw a cartoon version of the smears.


In nazi time, Jews were depicted as big crooked noses, money grabbing caricatures. Was anybody laughing? The only ones who "got it" then were Hitler's goons.
Here we have, blacks stereotyping, muslims stereotyping, flag desecration, mockery of the Presidential office, AND the reverence of a terrorist who just 7 years ago killed 3000+ and destroyed our cities, all neatly packaged and then...? One is left searching for something...but it's not there. 
And you seriously thought Bin Laden's photo in the Oval Office was satirical? 
Where in the picture are those you're accusing as the "smearers"? 
You missed to include those you were supposedly satirizing . As it is, the only thing you provided is a visual version of those smears, not to mention the perpetuating of stereotypes.

[Maury66]

Read Swift......check. Laughed at Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton jokes and impersonat­ors....che­ck . Closest thing to a ACLU member possible without card......check. Lenny Bruce.......of course. Carlin....­.....certa­inly. Appreciated the humor of seeing Dukakis' head sticking out of the tank and Kerry in camo.......yes. because they deserved to be poked fun at, even though it was painful. Understand the concept of trying to hit the rumor mill and the prejudice against the Obamas....­...undoubt­edly.

However......the cover sucked....the art was great.....but the concept missed ....they had every "right" to print whatever they want but face it....it missed......hit the wrong target......yes the guy is a geat artist....the mag has done fantastic work for a long time.....on and on....but this one is a dud folks.......like a fart in church .....it stinks and all the excuses in the world wont make it smell any better

[Ecoutez]

Instead of enlightenment, you chose incitement. What a major faux pas to produce a cover that has no relationship to Obama, but uses him to conjure up memories of 9/11. So very sad. I cry once again for my beloved birth city.

[Raymondf]

Good job Barry.

[FirstShirt]

Satire exaggerates some element of truth. This picture has no truth but facilitates bigotry.

[MS]

The cartoonist forgot the 20-second rule.

Most of us decide what something means within the first 20 seconds. We're smart enough to come to other conclusions if we think about it -- but most of us don't.

That means that the impression we get from that New Yorker cover -- "terrorist" "Muslim" "sneaky" Obamas -- is what most of us will take away. Not the irony. Not the sarcasm.

Too bad for us. Too bad for Obama. Another negative image to fight against (whatever the original intention was).

[Coronadoman]

You, ma'am, need to go back to high school for a refresher course on actually seeing. Not merely looking, which it is still uncertain you do or did.

20 seconds? You cannot read that lovely drawing in 20 seconds? What a failure of your own intellect!! Which sad little institution did you emigrate from? Wait: you COULD be a 'publican lurker, right?? C'mon fess up...

[dhinds]

Why are you attacking someone that defined a criteria and expressed their own opinion?

Here's mine:

There's the art, the intent and the results. The art and the intent were understandable, but the results were lamentable.

[Maury66]

I see you've posted extensively in favor of art, free speech....­.mmm....sa­tire, and I'll be the first to admit that you have a solid base from which to argue, even though I disagree for some of the same reasons as many of the others in this site. I think the guy is a fantastic artist.....the Magazine does great work....I just think they blew it.....that being said, I wish to repeat that there is still a good argument for your side of the question.....What I do want to make clear however, is that MS, above, does not strike me as a Republican lurker or anything of the sort. She seems to be sincerely concerned about the impact of the piece on OUR candidate, yours, mine, and hers. I hope you see this and reconsider your somewhat harsh assessment. Thanks!

[youknowwhat]

Hey New Yorker, how come you didn't put any of the people you were satirizing in the picture? You did that on the other illustrations you used as examples. Is this neosatirizing?

[eden4barack08]

Good one.

[Countdown09]

Want to know when your jokes not funny? When you have to explain why it's funny.

[senadovie]

I was yelling the same thing at my television last night. Now, on to important subjects...

[starboymikey]

Want to know when your jokes not funny? When you have to explain why it's funny.
__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__

Exactly right. They were too clever by 1/2 here.

Too bad, because this could have been a great cover with a bit more thought or a more perceptive editor.

That said, I attribute no malice to Britt or to the New Yorker in general. It's just a joke that really fell flat, falling far below the magazine's usually high esthetic and intellectual standards.

[ilovemydoggy]

This cover has convinced me to completely ignore mainstream media (MSM). It is cruel, misleading and ridiculous. For any news of substance I have to crawl around the Internet on my own.

TIPS: To search for French media type "Irak Bush" and then click on "translate page". - since French spell Iraq as IRAK. For Baby boomer perspectives are at http://www.Vaboomer.com

[chicago25624]

Remind me again who gets upset over cartoons. Who was it that threatened death over a cartoon?

hmmmmmmmm

[starboymikey]

Remind me again who gets upset over cartoons. Who was it that threatened death over a cartoon?
__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­__________­_______

No one here has yet threatened to kill Britt or anyone on the editorial staff of the New Yorker. Some of the comments attribute far more bad faith to the New Yorker than is justified, but that doesn't mean the cartoonist and magazine can't be taken to task for satire that badly missed the mark.

[who38]

So then, Bush being Cheney's handmaid and the Cabinet not making money due to their positions are also preposterous. As for Ahmadijan, he is straight. Got it.

[human23]

The artist chronicles and lampoons who we are.

The misplaced furor on these pages only echo our national traits of righteousness, superficiality and dogma.

Surely there must be more productive things for supporters of Obama (as I am) to talk about.

[davemartin7777]

Blitt's cover is made of anti-Obama propaganda pushed and legitimized by FOX NEWS in order to influence this election.

From the "terrorist fist jab" to the Obama as a Muslim BS, it's all FOX NEWS.

Doesn't anyone notice this?

The elephant in the room is FOX NEWS and EVERYONE is giving them a free pass.

Makes me sick.

[giacomino]

Agreed. The so-called cartoon is nothing but anti-Black, anti-Musliam hate mongering and race baiting swill. It is a scurrilous caricature, like the ones which led to the gas ovens in Dachua, Bergen-Belsen, Auschwitz-Bergenau, etc.

How sad the New Yorker's fine reputaion has been destroyed.

[antworks]

Thank you, giacomino! I made simular comments yesterday regarding this gabage. TNY has definately damaged its reputation and the public should never let them forget it. I use to like the mag and read it occasionally. But now, I want nothing to do with this piece of trash. Editors that would approve such are way out of bounds when it comes to journalistic ethics. Quite simply, it's not just the artist's fault, ultimately it's the editors' error. They have tried to damage this man's electability, period. I'm tempted to hold the NYT responsible, also. Who distributes the TNY?

[Coronadoman]

hahahahaha­ha.....nic­e try, repugnant lurker!

You and your fellow travelers who have been sent to stir the pot: we know better. You recognize your own hatred and bigotry being riposted, and in your pain and shame, you think that all of us must have our lives dumbed down to your pathetic level.

Nope. Not gonna do it.

Nicely done, Mr. Blitt. We're getting together a bundle of 200 or so locals to subscribe, so thanks for your intelligent work!

[Whatevah]

I like the cartoon. It makes fun of far right wingnuts, and they certainly deserve it. The media has done a poor job of clearing up the wacky beliefs out there; the cartoon will accomplish more than everything done by the rest of the media so far.

I think it's a good thing to make fun of stupid people. Can we do something with the creationists next?

[who38]

Do you see a far right wingnut in that picture; I don't. Just like the other covers, it is designed to lead people to a conclusion. If you compare those four covers (and add in the Clinton bedroom scene), the conclusion you reach has nothing to do with right wingnuts.

And Blitt and Remnick expect us to believe them. That should be a cover in itself.

[Coronadoman]

Poor who and eden:

As the poor poster children for a failed education, may I direct your attention here:

http://www.daumier.org/

See, those of us who have a little facility known as DISCERNMENT, easily see that those being skewered in Mr. Blitt's wonderful satire, recognize themselves just fine as the intended skewees. You two, if you are not repugnant lurkers, either are sadly missing a key genetic trait that allows one to discern satire, or you have even greater challenges, namely, teensy cerebrums. Either way, sorry.

[eden4barack08]

Could you help me out here? Please point out where in the caricature you unequivocally see the right wingnuts being made fun of? Where do you see them exactly?
Try and explain that if you will, to someone with a "lower sophistication" than yours. Better yet, explain that to someone who cannot see beyond what's visible. All, that's VISIBLE here is racial stereotyping, terrorism glorification, and flag desecration. And the only people I see are the Obama.