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

[jubo]

(incidentally, nice price hike)

[Menocu]

Wow, the New Yorker tries to make a point that doesn't need to be made about the libelous and ignorant lies about Obama going around. How about this, why don't they *ignore* these falsehoods instead of giving them some sort of weird justification to be discussed? After all, i don't support Bush, but if I told you he had two dongs would you give it creedence?

[Kremfresch]

The GREAT thing about The New Yorker is they just don't give a sh*t about explaining themselves to the idiots that aren't smart enough to get it. The people that ARE smart enough DO get it. The rest ain't reading The New Yorker, they're reading USA Today articles ABOUT The New Yorker. Crawl back into your little PC holes, Philistines!

[jubo]

Alas smart people ARE NOT in the majority, Phil.

[pkohan]

It was a DUMB cover for an extremely smart magazine to run. That the editors would consider this cover some sort of way to counteract the incorrect stereotypes of Barack and Michelle Obama is astoundingly naive and stupid.

[MikePatronSaintofTruth]

Dude, I read (past tense) the New Yorker, and I get it... What you don't get is that a cartoon like this is presented as "PARODY" by the "cartoonist".... but calling it "parody" is simply a glib pretext to openly slander Obama and his wife. --And those of us who know what's going on are ridiculed as "too stupid to 'get it'".... Christ, bud, you've got A LOT TO LEARN about politics.... YOu need to revisit your poli-sci 101 course. Do you really think that the editors of the New Yorker want Barak Hussein Obama to be the next president of the U.S.? I DON'T THINK SO!

[jubo]

So we think we've got this won, eh? How unprofessional.

[BlueZoo]

Don't we just love the MSM? This magazine is read by so few people that it would have been laughable to think it could possibly be influential. Then, here comes the MSM making an issue of the cover and all hell breaks loose! It's ridiculous! I sincerely doubt if any votes will change because this cover influences people. We're all seriously concerned, or we should be, over the more pressing issues of the day and I, for one, refuse to take this seriously. If a magazine cover changes your vote, you simply haven't done your homework and you let other people make far too many important decisions for you!

[Scarllatti]

Yeah, I sincerely believe your thinking here. However, some of these goons pretending to be journalists sometimes write or say controversial things in order to get a few hours of notoriety. Folks with brain substance in their skull can easily brush this off but there are zombies out there who either believes in the depiction or uses it to solidify their mangled thought processes. I have encountered some even on this blog.

[Mij13]

What could be better for the Obama campaign right now than to address the fear bomb that IS being thrown at people every day? It is absurdist, and we should trust that most people will be able to finally see it that way.

[poorwriter]

I always knew that Obama was a secret terrorist, posing as a presidential candidate. And Michelle Obama is a dangerous radical, ready to overthrow America. Now, the world knows their true colors, thanks to that patriotic New Yorker.

Pause.

Wow, everyone take a breath! While your antennae are quivering overtime, the Obama camp missed a great opportunity here to just laugh it off. I voted for a Republican for governor once who was dismissed pubicly by his opponent as"an orange-haired Presbyterian." His reaction to the dismissive description was, "I AM an orange-haired Presbyterian."

His amused response -- rather than manufactured outrage -- led me to believe he had a sense of humor. I spent some time getting to know his positions, found I agreed with them, and handed him my vote that November. His opponent lost.

[bigbingtheory]

Your analogy isn't valid. The illustration perpetuates smears, lies, about Obama. Your politician responded to a truthful remark. If that were you on the cover, I doubt you'd have to manufacture outrage and Obama has shown restraint calling it tasteless.

[rh654]

No one will ever mistake the "New Yorker" for John Stewart or Stephen Colbert.

This New Yorker group looks like a bunch of second or third tier "social commentators" who likely only speak within their little circle of "elites".

Between the liberal Preachers and Liberal Media - if Obama gets any more "help" - the GOP and their 527's won't have to spend much money at all to win this election.

[charley0008]

I have been buying the New Yorker since my late teens and today I am 60. I loved the New Yorker, among my most prized possessions are several magazines given to me by my aunt that dates back to the 30s and 40s when Harold Ross, the publisher, was also the editor. Over the years I have saved some of the issues I considered to be among the best.
It is not always great, but it has always set a standard that I considered to be above the rest.
Today I saw the cover. That is not satire! It lacked the guts to be satire. Satire would have been drawing it as a Billo, Hannity, or Rove wet dream, not a disconnected floating image. The lack of satire not withstanding, it goes an unforgivable step further.
I challenge anyone to find me one cover, since the inception of the New Yorker in 1925, that depicts a candidates wife in a political cartoon. There are none! In addition to using a front cover cartoon without reference or supporting inside story, they decided to make an exception for an African American woman whose husband happens to be the candidate for President.
I will never buy another New Yorker & I understand why African American people are upset. They showed complete disregard for their own historical standards. Under the pretense of satire, they used race & rumor to increase sales at the expense of the Obama campaign, the Senator and his wife.

[CaptSmash]

Great Post

[mhopgood123]

I couldn't agree with you more....this cartoon was completely tasteless and if you see the artist's other cartoons, they have some basis of truth to them while this one is a LIE!!!! I will never buy a New Yorker magazine again!!!!! If they wanted to have a funny cartoon of Obama they could have inserted it inside not on the front cover. This whole issue demeans his candidacy. I am so disgusted with the general media in this country that if it wasn'tfor my husband' s job in CHicago, I would leave this country ASAP.

[jemiltd]

No matter what spin is put on what their intentions were, at some level they knew what the fallout would be. We live in a country where perception is reality, especially when it comes to people of color and African descent. Given the tone and demeanor of the responses, I can only assume that the explanations are insincere and more than likely efforts to CYA. Unless they print a "caricature" of John McCain in the next issue, I am hard pressed to buy that the agenda of the magazine was not both politically and racially motivated. You see, the definition of a caricature is exaggeration by means of often ludicrous distortion of parts or characteristics, in other words, a distortion of truth. What we have here is the compilation of stereotypical lies, which unfortunately means, for many, this picture is worth a thousand racist words.

[MKSinSA]

I was unaware of the historical context and appreciate that of a long-time reader. Thanks.

Despite Blitt's apologists' cries to the contrary, the idea of political satire, as I understand it, is to lampoon the powerful using truths against them. The absolute laziness of using the falsehoods to do so and to lasso Michelle in the process is disgusting.

[Emmagoldmanbabe]

WTF? This is FUNNY! I think that we have lost our collective sense of humor. I loved Ms. Obama giving the View gals the fist bump. She has a sense of humor. Humor helps humans deal with difficult things. Lighten up and laugh at this PARODY.

Oy vey.

[mhopgood123]

I am sorry to disagree with your comment. This is not a parody. If the artist wanted parody they could have had Hannity and Rush in the picture somehow in a comical fashioon spreading their message of fear. I hate these conservative right wingers. They are killing the soul of this country !!!!!

[markie1111]

it's satire. parody is "goodgulf" in "bored of the rings".... this is no insult to barack and the obama camped screwwed up in not acknowledging as very decent SATIRE. gees.

[MikePatronSaintofTruth]

Why is a certain group of people trying so hard to convince people that this cartoon is just for sh8ts and giggles... The answer: because they don't want Barak Hussein Obama to be the next U.S. president.

[markie1111]

rest children, rest.

[FZliveson]

The New Yorker, like all publications and most media is a sideline critic, without the ability
to play the game themselves and not enough courage to come up with a proposed
platform and list of cogent colutions. Nothing more than "sophisticated" Na na na na na
taunting. It is B.S. and it is hurting the campaigns and the content of the national character.

[ChiMan1]

I am reinforced, this is exactly as I see this BITTER PAIR. Sold, American!!!

[glorysong]

This is terrible. They are wrong for doing this. The New York Times I will never read again. This is nothing but hate.

[Kremfresch]

Please. Like you EVER IN YOUR LIFE picked up a New Yorker magazine. If you did, it was at a doctor's office, and as soon as you read a cartoon you didn't understand, I'm sure you put it right back down and picked up an Outdoor Life.

[eggman]

LOL -- Sure, why not blame the NYT for the New Yorker cover?

[RoseFromPhila]

LOVE IT!!!!!!!!

[LisainNYC]

Why?

Because you are a disgruntled Hillary supporter who has a thing about blacks and you hope this tanks Obama's campaign so you can say, "I told you so!" ? Just guessing, based on your previous comments.

[LinusBern]

Supporting Obama and having a sense of humour are now incompatible?

[Nofuzzydreams]

Looks like you have a chip on your shoulder!! Hillary has been caricatured in naked pictures and John McCain has been called a fossil. Why should Obama get preferential treatment? Because he is black?

[Eyeful]

OK, I compared the previous covers by Barry Blitt shown in this blog and my conclusions are:

1. Ahmadinejad playing footsy in a bathroom stall with an open-toed sandaled stranger means he CAN be easily subverted.

2. Bush doing Cheney's housework means the vice president DOES actually control the white House.

3. Bush's cabinet meeting while being flooded means they ARE ignorant of the dangers they've created.

So, taking this artist's previous sense of "satire", Michelle and Barack Obama ARE going to subvert our nation using radical Muslim terrorism and violence. They will burn the American flag and they think highly enough of Bin Laden to hang his portrait.

[LisainNYC]

Exactly

[mhopgood123]

That is an intelligent observation. Exactly mine too.