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

[lldorward]

Satirize the perpetrators, not the victim. What you did was add injury to insult.

[sagopalm]

I'm a democrat and support Barack Obama. I think the magazine cover is hilarious!!!

[PatCroft]

me to! hawhaw!

[cassandra123]

If you think this magazine cover is hilarious, you do not support Senator Barack Obama. You are mouthing words. Senator Obama and his wife are patriotic, peace loving, sincere Americans. No American wants to be depicted as a terrorist, wielding an AK-47 rifle, and burning the American Flag in the fireplace of the oval office in the white house! There is absolutely nothing remotely comical, funny or hilarious about such an awful slander.

This magazine committed a hit-job on the democratic nominee for the presidency. There is no other possible expanation. I don't buy any of their statements. Conde Nast should feel the economic pain of this nasty, and I believe, intentional cowardly act.

[Kathyann1]

I saw that editor on CNN today defending the nasty thing. The caption by his picture said he was formerly with the Washington Post. Anybody from that Republican-loving paper is automatically suspicious to me. Just what did that guy do there?

[Tinkeraw]

HuffPost's Pick

The editor for the New Yorker has been all over the cable news shows defending this cover. If you have to explain the joke it isn't a very good joke.

[CountryBeforeParty]

Very true.

Then again, given the state of education in the United States, even good, clever jokes have to be explained. When the level of humor most people understand revolve around bodily functions, it's a sad state of affairs for us all.

I title the cover, "Republican Wet Dream"

[gypsy508]

The Democratic Party future...you think there is censorship in this country now....just wait....Democrats are very thin skinned

[Tommygun264]

Unlike the 'pubs who welcome and encourage free expression, right? Like the man who said to Dick Cheney in a calm even voice, from a respectable distance as he walked by, "Mr. Cheney, I think your policy in Iraq is appalling". The Secret Service came after him and arrested him for assault in front of his young son, who they also took into custody because father and son were alone. Get back to me when you have evidence of a Democrat abusing his power to intimidate innocent citizens who dare to voice their opposition in a civilized manner.

[lizr]

or the woman who was pulled from a rally becuase she had a Tshirt that said McCain =Bush

[renumeratedfrog]

I think this cover is hilarious. It exposes the ridiculous dirt that the right-wing is trying to throw at Obama, who deals with it by trying to ignore it. Well, trying to ignore it won't do any good because the accusations are not going away. The racists and the religionists will keep slinging the mud and they'll interpret the silence as a guilty agreement. Satirizing them is a much more clever way to respond to those attacks than keep silent, or even answering them directly.

[lizr]

yeah, for those who have the brains to figure out it's satire.

News Flash!

That is not most of the undecided voters.

[eden4barack08]

When they did the cartoon of Hillary and Barack in bed together, and she supposedly wakes up to answer the red phone that's on her side of the bed, at 3 am, there was a lot that was offensive, but that's satire. An exaggeration of something based on truth. The idea was perhaps that she would be the President, but would take Obama as VP, hence the sleeping together. There was no outrage, even though it was Obama already in the lead. 
Another one is GW and Cheney, where GW is his "maid" in apron and all cleaning and catering to a very relaxed cigar smoking Cheney. Again offensive, but an exaggeration of a truth, we all can confirm that Cheney, has been an unusually powerful VP. 
Yet another one was the entire Bush Cabinet, sitting in an office full of money, in coins, almost buried in it. Again, based on truth, indicating how the war contracts, oil etc, could make them very rich.



So, how does this outrageously false depiction of the Obamas exaggerate any truth?
All I see in this is a perpetuation of smears. The satire part is missing here.

[tillybummie]

There's no reason for Barry Blitt to regret this cartoon. It is a brilliant piece of work, just like his other work. The problem here is that the context of reception decides what a successful satire is. Blitt and the editors know what the political atmosphere is like and they know that they have a very small repertoire for responding to racist practices. Presented on the cover in the way it was -- with no kind of framing - wasn't about presenting Blitt's work. It's not "just" another New Yorker cover. This placement was a cheap shot at the public and at the Obamas. Given its content and message, this cartoon would have worked much more effectively alongside the articles. This is the kind of cartoon I would have hung up in my office, and had a good laugh everytime I look up at it. Now, it is entirely tainted with bad intentions.

[lizr]

Blitt and his editor are destructive fools.

[who38]

Guess Blitt and Company are out of touch with the current "context of reception". Guess this makes them, and TNY, irrelevant.

[nonconformist2]

I think if they made more of an effort to satirize the right wing slime machine, it would have not had just a negative impact. Even portraying Rush Limbaugh dreaming and this is a bubble above his head illustrating his dream.

Have they been paying attention? A good percentage of people (i-diotic as it may be), actually believe some of this stuff. This doesn't help. Especially when it get "used" by the right wing to justify their slander.

[JAMES GORMAN]

THE NEW YORKER COVER forgets that us awful
Leftists" have a sense of decency--a picture is worth a 1000 words, and picturing Obama
as a Muslim, and Mrs.O as a toothy leering gun-tote simply goes beyond caricature to outright
ridicule. THE NEW YORKER has abandoned a wonderful tradition of serious responsibility
about how persons are effected--and you have lost in this one all common sense and respect.
You won't recover as far as I am concerned---I bought one New York in a decade---the one that
described how the Vatican swayed Bush's re-election in 2004. That was damaging, but based upon
real insights from facts and done in way to examine the Church, not to destroy it. This cover
will easily destroy the background images of two marvelous people. J.McCormick

[rationalthought1]

I have no gripe with the artist. He could depict Obama as Little Sambo eating a watermelon...what ever he wants. I do think the New Yorker's editor showed incredibly bad judgement, however, putting it on his cover. What a fiasco! But the Right wing will love this since a media blitz of an image will promote the big lie way more than any written explanation as to its satirical intent. The negative imprint is destructive to Obama's campaign - no matter what its intent. Its about being in touch with today's reality and being responsible. The New Yorker really blew it. The Left is very naive sometimes.

[Lynette]

This cover offends Muslims in the worst way, to infer they all were flip flops and hang pictures of Bin Laden show ignorance on our part. Meanwhile Arab nations are coming to America buying up icons like the Chrysler building and here we are thinking we are doing something cute by being blissfully offensive. Instead we owe money to places like China, our stocks are worthless, our dollar is worth 50 cents and we cannot turn a corner without having to buy oil from these so called flip flop wearing Muslims..I hate to say it but our educational system needs to greatly improve because we are living back in the day when "we were all that"... Now we're just struggling to keep from embarrassing ourselves. We need to broaden our world history views, and that's not all.

[racetoinfinity]

This cover will not easily destroy anything. If people are too dumb to get it, that's their problem. We have become a nation of dummies, apparently.

[lizr]

news to you infinity man.

THe education and sophistication level in this country is NOT HIGH>

ANd not their problem, duh, it is all of our problem and the whole world's problem if we elect another Republican to continue W's destruction.

[Veeve]

I just canceled my subscription. They can go to hell; Blitt first.

You do caricatures of the truth, not falsehoods. The editors thought they were being cute... Well.. It wasn't.

[GeorgeKaplan]

And I just subscribed.... again.

[labqi]

Thats very yiddy behaviour for you !!

[dct1999]

Succintly put, nice job.

[thatsNotWhatIHeard]

they've ALWAYS done caricatures of the truth, take a look at EVERY other New Yorker cover in the history of New Yorker covers. That Obama and his wife are any of these things is not truth, no; but that these things are quite often talked about on talkshows, blogs and the media is an undeniable truth; and the one that the artist chose to lampoon.

Its really not worth half the fury people are tossing its way. I'd hate to see an illustrator lose work because of this, the industry is sure as hell tough enough to survive in as it is. Some people need to lighten up.

[lizr]

the editor AND the cartoonist should go. now.

[renumeratedfrog]

Somehow I doubt you've ever even read a New Yorker article, much less subscribed to it.

[lizr]

I read it all the time and I am floored by the level of obliviousness to the climate in this country.

Clearly this was put together by a couple of stupid frat boyz.

[dct1999]

It is hard for me to articulate my feelings about this cover.

The attempt to degrade Michelle Obama stuns me. Why is the candidate's wife the main subject in the drawing?

Why is there absolutely no depiction of the right wing idiots who perpetuate these lies about the Obamas? True satire would have focused on them, not the targets of their lies and hate.

There is absolutely no context, this is not satire. This is a slandersous hit job courtesy of the tone deaf editorial staff of the NYer.

[GeorgeKaplan]

Did you feel the same way when the Nation magazine had a cover showing GWB portrayed as Alfred E Newman from Mad magazine?

[samandally]

You bet I did, but I liked the one where he looked like Mo from the Three Stooges better.

[ManassasMan]

I was offended by that ! It was insulting to Alfred E. Newman.

[wdw101]

When she actively campaigns for BO...... she is fair game.

[Lynette]

dgt1999, it shouldn't stun you, America has a race baiting, degrading and divisive history, i don't think some people can help themselves, it's in their gene pool. Rev Wright called America racist, I just wonder who out there thought he was making that up, he was speaking what a lot of people deep down think all the time, that America is NOT Paris when it comes to unity and promotion of citizenship, it's divided and some people are so prejudice it makes your hair stand on end. All you can do is hope that the good citizens outweigh the bad ones, that the good open-minded Americans outweigh the backwards thinking racist Americans, one love...feel alright.

[Maury66]

Regret it.....I posted in a different place the following....its bad satire, because the image doesnt reference the people being satirized....it is an image of the victims....the object of the satire is nowhere to be seen...maybe if you had a fat republican or a good ole boy with a dream bubble over his head and the contents of the mag cover inside that bubble....that would solve the problem with the piece....as presented it misses the mark and unfortunately does a certain amount of harm to the people that the artist is attempting to show support for.....

All that being said....imagine this.....Rush will say that Obama cant take a joke....he will laugh a lot....this is just a guess on my part....but probably accurate.....ok ...so here is Rush's problem with this.....suddenly, Obama isnt really any of those things that Rush would have liked to imply....because now its a joke which Barak "cant handle" Therefore....Rush cant have it both ways...its either a substanative criticism or its a joke....cant have it both ways.

So maybe I've been wrong....not the first time.

[PandaBear]

Maybe the next issue will show McCain yucking it up with the Vietcong, having a good meal, passing along military secrets, with other US prisoners in their cages in the background. Sounds about the same type of satire.

[guajiro]

Good point Maury. About all that drug-addicted Bimbaugh is good for is as an apologist for the wealthy. Like AHHNOLD said about Bimbaugh; "Rush is irrelevant".

[thatsNotWhatIHeard]

you don't need thought bubbles and villians to beat a point over someone's head these days. Yes, it is essentially a political cartoon, but that doesn't mean the point is any less made without pasting the names of the good guys and bad guys and motives into the picture. The general audience's intelligence deserves more credit than that, especially when it concerns the readers of the New Yorker

[lizr]

the audience for this will not be limited to the New Yorker audience, duh.

If it were, no one would be upset.

Can you really be as obtuse as you sound?

[sandtats]

Well then call it what it is, a political cartoon/burlesque, as per Merriam Webster, "implying mockery especially through giving a serious or lofty subject a frivolous treatment. " What it is NOT is satire. It lack subtlety, a hallmark of GOOD satire, along with the most critical component of satire, identifying the perpetrator of the folly you are exposing, revealing. This illustration fails on both counts. Neither is it caricature, as that is a gross distortion, exaggeration, of something truthful, real. So, love it or hate as you may, but the NY'er cannot explain this away with self serving claims of satire.

[urbangreen]

I think, this time, you got it exactly right.

[dana94591]

I will bitch about the cartoon until I see one depicting McBush!!!

[dora rice]

I want to buy The New Yorker 12 months issues. Excellent magazine.

[GeorgeKaplan]

It's been done...

[MaybeMilo]

None of those other covers portray active candidates - but what are you gonna do....