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

[jasjohn128]

Get a grip, alla' you'se humorless drones. Barry Blitt draws good covers, this is his style, and frankly it's a shame he held back so much on this one.

[mhopgood123]

I consider myself a funny person and this is beyond funny. It is actually pretty demeaning to someone who may be the president of this country and to his wife. I am so sick of the stupid mainstream media. I think I will only read the Huffington Post, The DAily Kos and watch AMy Goodman from now on.

[MikePatronSaintofTruth]

You're a racist. And you know you are...

[wisechild]

This is satire? Only to those who get it...

To those who believe the myths about Obama, this is reinforcement.

I have always been a avid fan of the New Yorker but this is a bit over the top because this is a very sensitive issue that camp Obama has been dealing with for months.

I would have liked to see the headline of the article included on the cover to offer some context for the cartoon.

Otherwise it nearly defeats the purpose of satire and goes into the realm of feeding misinformation to those who do not probe deep enough into meaning or facts.

[msmaggie]

Only dunderheads wouldn't see this for what this is, a send up of the hysteria coming from the many xenophobes out there. And I think the dunderhead vote is pretty much going for the other guy anyway.

[cmhmd]

Unfortunately, according to cognitive psychology, most of us, liberal and conservatives and"dunderheads" in this sense: We may see or read something contrary to our preconceived notion that should make us forsake that notion, but it paradoxically reinforces it!

So I know of a "dunderhead" who has an "Obama is a Muslim" bumper sticker. He will be posting this cartoon in his office and as wallpaper for his computer, etc. He won't see it for satire, as sad as that is.

Cheers

[Deidroni]

THE NEW YORKER IS DOING ANN COULTER'S WORK FOR HER.

[TimFredrickson]

The trouble that satire and parody have which apparently the New Yorker is too unsophisticated (read too elitist) to realize is that there is often a kernel of truth to it that makes the attempt to satirize or parody understandable to the audience. It is a tricky thing to try to satirize bigotry and slander since you are already starting with a malicious form of satire. Great care must be shown. The New Yorker failed in this. For many, all they have done is reinforce the prejudice and ignorance that already exists.

[LinusBern]

I think that kernel of truth being satirized was not the Obamas being Muslims, but the imbeciles that would spread the idea that they were.

[shedances]

I'm afraid the New Yorker is, as people have been saying recently, coming off as an ultra-elitist rag.

K

[jasjohn128]

from Get Your War On:

"If 'elitist' just means 'not the dumbest m*th*rf*ck*r in the room,' I'll be an elitist!"

http://www.mnftiu.cc/mnftiu.cc/war.html

[eljodio]

The New Yorker is way wrong on this one. As one of the previous posters noted, for satire to work there must be a grain of truth to it. President Bush as Cheney's man-servant works because there's a bit of truth to it. The President of Iran's homophobia exposed in a bathroom stall works as satire. Bush and his cabinet going under in a sinking ship also works as satire. But the magazine cover does not depict truth in any shape of form and thust escapes satire. The only thing depicted are blatant stereotypes, misconceptions, and prejudices. It does not cut through the muddle with the sword of laughter. The only way this would have worked as satire was if the Obamas had done it themselves, then it would have been a sendup or a spoof. Despite the intent of the artist and the publishers, this depiction just reinforces public misconceptions about the Obamas.

[joy316]

100% correct the Obama cover lacks the basic "element of truth" requirement for satire. I hope Mr. Blitt responds to your post.

[mdemploi]

Precisely. It does not 'draw' on truth, but perception, political spin. Show the right ideologues (Coulter, ;Limbaugh, etc.) printing out this cover as if it were counterfeit money,and then trying to pass it off as the real thing. .

[LinusBern]

You assume it is the Obamas being satirized, but it is not, it is the morons who would spread the rumour. I'm not saying this is brilliant satire, but take a breath before being consumed by outrage.

[Nofuzzydreams]

Except that Obama's father and stepfather's were Muslims, he studied at an early age in a Muslim school in Indonesia and he may, just may, harbor some muslim values. My recent ancestors had been direct sufferers in the hands of muslims (sorry to generalize but there is a common thread among those who follow this religion) so I want to know more about Obama's past and any signs of Muslim values.

[truthandtrust]

I also think it's important to note that the other covers were satires of politicians already in office. Misunderstanding this one can create havoc for a candidate not yet elected, and for that reason is more objectionable.

[nick1936]

eljodio you are the only one on this blog so far who really gets this cover as offencive. THERE IS NO GRAIN OF TRUTH IN IT>

[mhopgood123]

Exactly. This is just going to be used by anti-Obama forces to reinforce their images of Obama. I just got one of those nasty e-mails today. It just never ever ends.

[mivogo]

Lost in all this sceaming back and fortth aboutt this New Yorker cover is the fact that Obama has slipped dramatically in the polls--before this cover came out. Obama has been looking good, McCain lousy, and McCain is still gaining dramatically in the polls, especially among independents. I'm not exactly sure why this happened, but I do know it wasn't caused by the cover of the New Yorker. This is the big story of the day, and it is being all but ignored. What's up with this?

[shedances]

Are you saying that this may be indicative of dwindling public support for Obama ...or is it just a coincidence in terms of timing? Interesting view, mivogo.

[mscriblerus]

He hasn't slipped that much. It's media pole jumping that makes it seem so drastic. They are just doing a terrible job of being consistent with the poles they use. He was never ahead by as much as some outlets reported. I think they are just gaming the system to manipulate the narrative for quick canned news.

[MilesTone]

Well do you think this article will help Obama gain in the polls now?

[evekendall]

Major polls McCain vs Obama:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

[LisainNYC]

Not true, but thanks for your concern.

Obama has actually RISEN in most polls. He is beating McCain nationally, in the swing states of PA and OH, is very close or tied in NC and GA and is only 10 points behind McCain in ARIZONA.

[babylonandon]

Hey, folks...he­re's "CHANGE THAT WE NEED"...

...the whole country needs to get a sense of humor!!!!

People are so uptight that if I inserted a lump of coal in about 90% of this story's commenters, I could break DeBeers diamond monopoly overnight!!!

[gevan]

What this country needs and what this country gets are sometimes two different things. Roughly a quarter of Americans have no (or at least a verrry limited) sense of humor. Many of these people vote in Presidential elections. Draw your own conclusions.

[shedances]

Maybe it's not the right time for such humor, babylon? I mean, we're living in times of considerable economic & international crises, as well as growing political divisiveness. Not exactly the best circumstances to be laughing up a storm at such imagery, don't you think? Yes, I do have a sense of humor ... but I also have enough good sense not to laugh crudely at such things in difficult times.

K

[gehmflor]

The reason I do not find this funny, is that I have relatives who actually believe it all to be true! There are too many people who buy into the fabricated fear and actually think that Barak is all of the pictured atrocities. I was sincerely told, "Go ahead...vo­te for Obama... and when he institutes Sharia law you'll see. You'll see!" So no... I am not laughing.

[shedances]

This cover is offensive to many people ~ it's worse, in obvious ways, than the controversial satire painting of the late Mayor Harold Washington that caused such a stir in Chicago at the School of the Art Institute. For those claiming here ~ like "Cynth" ~ that it's no big deal (like, a minor polt. art controversy) ... I have to ask: Where exactly have you been all these years, buddy? Even in a library you can read about public opinions, even if you don't witness it directly.

And yes ~ political art (esp. in a pivotal election year) is ALWAYS a big deal.

Shedances.

[Eyeful]

Barry Blitt is an idiot if he thinks middle America "gets" satire. His cartoon not only fans the flames of ignorance and bigotry, but gives credibility to these outrageous rumors. Do you think that the New Yorker masthead above this cartoon justifies it as legitimate parody? Ok, sure pal, maybe if it were Mad Magazine you might get away with using satire as an excuse, but it's madness to think you are HELPING the Obama campaign. This only helps to sell more New Yorker magazines.­..to right wingnuts!

I'm canceling my subscription.

[shedances]

Well said! I hope that people don't buy it, either.

An empty (publication) pocket always sends a strong message ... far stronger than even comments of disgust, I'd wager.

K

[Nancyann]

We did too !!!! Now write !!!!!

Every one who thinks that this was in the poorest of taste and guaranteed to give the Obama haters all the fuel they need in the general election, please write to David Remnick. Here is his email address [e-mail]

We cancelled our subscription after over 20 years because this was just too over the top.

[belikejeanvaljean]

It is not political satire. It may be (tasteless) satire about some Americans' prejudice on matters of race and religion, but it is not political, and I am surprised the staff at the New Yorker fail to understand this. They seem to be confusing their publication with Mad Magazine.

[Jitsuryoku]

BRAVO!!

[stagebandman]

Unfortunately, there are thousands of people (voters) who will be hanging this up in their workplaces, bedrooms, churches and meeting halls. Satire or not, this cartoon will have drastic consequences for the Obama campaign. I just pray you haven't given extremists incentive to act malevolently.

[shedances]

I agree. Putting Obama in with Osama bin Laden especially (after 9/11) is probably one of the worst moves this magazine could've made. I think the New Yorker will have a fair amount of damage control over this. Stupid editors.

[sanang]

I don't subscribe to the New Yorker but my sister does, she is not cancelling just because of this absurbity!