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

[Coronadoman]

What IS clear, is that President Obama will not condone torture, and will reverse the illegal activities that Bush has engaged in for the past 8 years.

Watch closely on January 19, 2009:

Bush will pardon all the criminals, to avoid war crimes and plain old criminal charges.

THIS is a great part of what frightens those who "don't get it" here. They know they're in deep trouble for their lies and criminality. Let's meet back here January 20th, to see how correct I am.

[Jazzcomedian]

It's supposed to be a joke, and the way all humor is received is subjective, as there is no universal sense of humor. So people should either laugh or not laugh, and just leave it at that. All this sturm and drang over the cover is nonsense. The cover and accompanying article was aimed at the New Yorker's highly educated, and broadminded readers, not the inhabitants of Appalachia, rural America, Pat Robertson followers, or other close minded people.

Everytime we stop doing something because we think the uninformed and/or dumb won't get it, the dumb and/or uninformed win. Everything is now aimed at the lowest common denominator and their concerns, which is why the country is dumbing down at such a rapid pace. Stupidity is setting the American political and cultural agenda. The smart keep worrying about the dumb not getting it, instead of making the dumb worry about not getting it. We need to challenge stupidity rather than acquiesce to it.

Why should the New Yorker stop aiming articles, and covers at it's loyal readers on the chance that some idiot who doesn't even know where to find the magazine, will take the wrong thing from it? That's absurd.

Obama/Jazzcomedian '08

[Uling]

As a concerned Vermont artist, here is my response (re-thinking) and suggestion about the kind of illustration it should be, something that has depth and insight, something that directly hits the message and not simply a blunt-illustration-statement-period(.) It is something that is not visually misleading people into thinking that the Obama's are muslims or revolutionaries, but to expose who are the real spinners in creating this most outrageous Politics of Fear.

http://www.geocities.com/randycrosby/politicsOfFear.jpg

Maria Crosby

[Jazzcomedian]

Your suggestion would be good if they were aiming it at a different reader, but they are aiming things at their regular affluent readers which are more sophisticated and high-brow. That's the readership they have to please, not somebody who never reads anything more in depth than "People" who could take it the wrong way.

[mouselion]

I like it. More to the point than Blitt's, for those who need more of the dots to be connected for them.

[Coronadoman]

Thank you.

Now, can all the handwringers and lurkers go do something to get Barack elected?

Obama/Coronadoman '08-'16

[ElliotNC]

"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die." - Mel Brooks

[ErrolSmythe]

People have integrity and high moral standards and are tired of trashy journalism.
If certain media agencies want to continue to sensationalize swirl and stereotype certain high profile people including Barak and Michelle Obama with patchwork profiling that stretches the credibilty of good journalism just for a few giggles and a few laughs by a few staff members employed by such media agencies, then mass cancellations of subscriptions to bankrupt trashy journalism may be the panacea to such irresponsibility.
Respect should not be just a by word. Moral principles should not be compromised for a few laughs in some demented twisted dark rabid hatred and tormented pseudo sanctuary of respectability of bygone centuries.
Falling standards shred and tatter the banner of respectabilty and corrupt responsible journalism and throws gutter mud on the respectability and patriotism of all American citizens and is disrespectful and downright mean and dirty to all patriots and American citizens including Barak and Michelle Obama .
Time for a change in Editorial policy . Freedom of the press can only be a defence for good accurate responsible journalism and not for bad inaccurate irresponsible journalism that is devisive and incites racial prejudice and is a threat to tasteful respectful and credible journalism. Errol Smythe.

[ErrolSmythe]

The reptilian underbelly of gutter swirl profile politics has slithered on the editorial pages of modern day journalism leaving a trail of distaste, disgust and mistrust of what used to be iconic media status of respectable and responsible journalism.
Some people just don't know where to draw the line between editorial sensational media gutter garbage and good editorial sound judgement. A few resignations may be in order from those responsible for smearing gutter mud swirl on the banner of freedom of the press and shredding good editorial judgement .
The red flags on this "...journalistic boo boo..." is egg on the faces of all those that had their laughs around the editor's coffee table when he approved this cartoon picture of the politics of fear.
Word on the street is that some media agencies have no respect for the good taste of their subscribers and that such media agencies have a hidden agenda to brainwash targeted sectors of the community so that they can impose a predetermined mindset that is stereotyped to be offensive distasteful and down right mean and dirty.
There was a serious breech of good sound judgement by the editorial department of the New Yorker Magazine.
Were a few giggles and laughs around the cartoonist's coffee meeting table worth it?
This hidden agenda to derail Barak Obama and Michelle Obama's respectablity is downright dirty and mean and represents the reptilian underbelly of gutter journalism . Errol Smythe

[Coronadoman]

omg..........

...even Olbermann doesn't get it.

woe.

double woe.

the sky MUST be falling............even President Obama doesn't wish Keith to miss this badly...

ok, enough sadness: time to get to work and 'splain how America is supposed to work. Stay tuned.

[mawied]

And how, exactly, is America supposed to work?

[Coronadoman]

America is supposed to work as a savvy, intelligent, able, competent, liberal bastion of reason, creativity and belly laughs.

Why, did you have another vision?

[JerryMerry]

Loved it. Oh, so NYC. Can hardly wait to see what they will do for the McCain cover.

[gala1]

I'm only hoping the cartoon doesn't obscure the feature story.
I've heard pieces of this story all along.
But we now can't plead ignorance with this whole off-putting little tale before us.
We all stand to become a nation of f Alice Palmers

Instead of the usual proforma racist accusations, consider that we haven't yet nominated someone whose only qualification is the extent of his ambition.
It's folly to do this at the best of times. And these are coming onto times so bad they are beyond our remembering.
Some Democrats are determined to to foist upon us a candidate most Americans just cannot relate to . .

I understand that it's a point of pride for the African-American community to have one of their own as a presidential candidate.
Here's the heart of the problem. Obama is seen as one of their own.
Not one of all of us. And it's not us that are creating that perspective. it is Obama's supporters.

People in crisis invariably skew to the familiar. Every bit of press about Obama's finicky,catered to existence only serves to widen any distance most of America feels towards those that fastrack the gravy train.,
He is not running for the King of Pop. A president has no business being anybody's Homeboy.
Worse when it reflects Chicago Politics , not exactly a by word for fair and square ..

We need another Democratic candidate. And a GOP one, too. Both are insults to us as voters


-gala1

[Coronadoman]

nice try...

race baiting has no place in this contest: be gone, interloper!

As a white man, it is a "point of pride" to have a candidate who opposes illegal, stoopid war, imagines a vastly safer country which doesn't anger allies and enemies alike, and embodies what we, Progressives, like to call:

The Anti-Bush.

No, we do not concede your appeal to race. President Obama will achieve greatness despite your vile Lee Atwater-ness, and because of the efforts of tens of millions of Americans who are tired, bone tired, of your failed policies.

[TRex86]

The cartoon wasn't racist (despite its awful stereotyping), but its pointless, humorless attempt at parody of the bigots and ignoramuses failed because all it did was bundle their stupid accusations into one composite image. The subtext, however, is our ongoing struggle with race. How can we have an AA President and not accept that he/she will be fair game for lampooning whether done artfully or not. The cartoon might even have worked if it was done after Obama's election--to point out how he triumphed over the slime mongers. Then the fist bump would represent a celebration of a momentous victory over our dreadful past.
The truth is that race remains a sticking point. We're uncomfortable, having tried to atone with numerous halfway measures, but we remain in many ways segregated. We certainly don't know where the bounds of good taste end. I can only admire Obama for his courage in trying to bring our nation closer to closure on its ugly history. His candidacy is a potential turning point. His election will be profound whether he is a great president or not. He's a politician, not the messiah, but he represents the deepest yearnings in our psyches to get beyond our past. After November 4, the first time John Stewart or Jay Leno make a joke about President Obama I will feel a mountain lifted off my shoulders. For now I can hardly breathe thinking of the act of cowardice in our electing another old white guy instead.

[rjcrane]

Everyone needs to get a grip on reality here. This whole issue is nothing more than a media driven story. Does anyone really believe people who think Obama is a Muslim read The New Yorker? What person who reads The New Yorker or would even know where to find it in a bookstore would be fooled into thinking Obama is a Muslim? The people who could be fooled by this cover would never read this magazine and wouldn't even know how to find a copy.

And progressives should not be attacking one of their own who supports Obama over something like this. Maybe it was tasteless or maybe you didn't think it was all that funny or maybe you don't care for dark humor or irony like this, but lighten up and realize you are just being played to create an issue that doesn't exist. The only thing this controversy might produce is more magazine sales.

RJ Crane, topplebush.com

[panderwatch]

The mystery of this controversy is that cartoons depicting Obama on this subject haven't been more widespread. This is "news" in that it crosses some bounderies that most mainstream funnymen and women haven't crossed yet. And his supporters should stop worrying: those who think he is a Muslim/terrorists will continue to do so regardless of any cartoons and will never vote for him anyway. I think Bush is a terrorist (of a sort) and no cartoons of him will sway me one way or the other.

Also, I find it interesting that people complaining about this image talk about rules governing satire. Duh! There are no rules. Personally, I liked the NYer cover depicting the Hasid kissing the African American women better (comment on Black/Jewish relations). It wasn't 'ha ha' funny but it made a similar point.
panderwatch.com

[doneflyin]

Like a stand up comedian does when he tells a joke that bombs, this cartoon does the same thing.

It just doesn't work.

The New Yorker people are all defensive and uppity saying that the sophisticated, smart crowd will need no explanation as they will "get It." They being cutting edge, intellectuals n' all.

The people who won't read it, who never read the New Yorker will look at the picture and say,
"See even that East coast liberal, smarty pants magazine that only the left wing and the Godless read thinks just like we do that Obama and wife are Muslim terrorists who gonna enslave us and put our women folk in those black sheets."

It will re-enforce and give support to every prejudice they hold against the Obamas.


I really question their motives.This was really a stupid thing to do unless there is a hidden agenda.

[Agnim]

This satire DID NOT WORK, if the intent was as claimed by the author!

It is arrogant to believe that every piece of satire will work 100% or close to 100% as was intended!

Some pieces of satire will succeed!
And some pieces of satire WILL FAIL.
And this so-called satire about lies surrounding the Obamas just did not succeed.

Instead, the satire achieved the exact opposite of its intent; because it is seen more as feeding/validating the lies about the Obamas rather than dismissing them.

[JimNauseam]

I think it's a brilliant cover -- and I'm a big Obama supporter. Some people just don't get irony. It's like an intelligence test. The best thing Obama could've done is laugh and request the original.

[the964kid]

That would be true if you assume that people walking past a news stand understand 'irony' and 'satire.' Maybe you didn't notice but half this country voted for Bush twice! Clearly nearly half of this country is not very bright. To many of these people this cover will only reinforce the right wing smears they've already been exposed to.

[RepublicanJames]

Actually, no. Half this country voted against Gore and against Kerry, not for GW.

Many Dems appear to love Al Gore, now, but frankly, he was a worthless candidate. He had an agenda that he talked about, but frankly when he talked about that agenda, he stopped talking to us, and instead started talking at us. The discussion turned into a lecture, and even worse at times it was a lecture from on high. To make matters worse, even Bill Clinton refused to support his campaign.

Strangely, John Kerry was worse. John Kerry talked to us and told us his agenda and listened to our feedback, making it a conversation. Unfortunately, John Kerry had the personality of... Well a Gerbil. When he talked about his agenda, there was no feeling or passion in it, which made it hard for free thinkers to really figure out what his real position was. He then made a mistake that seems to be paying off for McCain, he got his wife involved. Now please remember that every candidates wife has been involved, at least since the 60's, but only Kerry's wife was a head of a very large corporation. Combine the two together and some people begin to feel that they are getting a Manchurian Candidate.

The American people didn't vote for GW as much as they voted against Gore and Kerry. The same will hold true if McCain wins this year, which I pray will not happen.

[ThatTexasNurse]

Have you ever heard of such bad taste. Evidently, the cartoonist, the editor, and the publisher were never taught the meaning of the word "tacky."

[JimR]

I guess you don't believe in a free press? Or is it OK to poke fun at politicians, but only the ones you don't like?