Best Thing Yet About the Obama New Yorker cover

If you haven't seen it yet, check out Lee Siegel's extremely smart piece about the New Yorker cover depicting Barack and Michelle Obama as anti-American, Osama-sympathizing radicals. It's the first piece I've seen that really gets at why the art didn't work as satire.

In short, Siegel is arguing that satire works best -- or, rather works at all -- when it is lampooning a widely accepted truth. Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" magnifies, and thus satirizes, the English crown's cruel treatment of the Irish. But what truth does the New Yorker cover satirize? Siegel has a suggestion for how it could have been done right: "But if that very same New Yorker cover had been drawn in a balloon over the head of a deranged citizen -- or a ruthless political operative -- it would have appeared as plausible only in the mind of that person," Siegel writes. "The image would have come across as absurd and unjust -- a version of reality exaggerated to the point of madness." Right on.

Siegel (who by the way is not the admired novelist Lee Siegel) is a very fine cultural critic who wrote the best-ever takedown of Barbara Kingsolver, for which I will always have a soft spot for him. He used to have a somewhat irrational antipathy toward the New York Times, but it is a pleasure to see him contributing such fine pieces there.

Comments

[grendl]

By the way, the New Yorker cover is lampooning a widely accepted truth, that being the American public has become very lazy in its thinking.

The left has become so goddamn cautious about treading upon the sensibilities of the unwashed masses, we're actually criticizing a publications right of free speech. If the American public doesn't understand the satirical intent of a piece so be it. We deserve brain dead leaders if we have a brain dead population. Majority rules in a democracy.

But if we try to curtail covers like the New Yorkers from being published, for fear of political reprisal come this fall we are falling into the hands of the conservative right wing nut cases, the ones who don't much like satire, or sarcasm, or anything that hints at challenging their monochromatic view of the universe. They want the left afraid to poke fun of them. They want the population to remain stupid, so they take the content of that cover literally.

Well, the only way to teach is to challenge. And that cover challenged.

[Ant]

I think it was Oprah Winfrey who stopped having white supremacists on her show because it gave them a huge forum to spread their message of hate even though she was challenging it. She thought she was doing more harm than good by having them on her show. The artist of the New Yorker cover did more harm than good even though he might have had good intentions.

[NYDamien]

Genius is genius, regardless if one person appreciates it, or a million. How many average people, if by some miracle, woke up in the Museum of Modern Art during a Picasso exhibition, would appreciate the works of one of the greatest painters of all time? Uneducated in the many attributes that make a great painting, they would probably react like I would¦..What the Hell is that?? A naked fat lady with three boobs, and a nose sticking out of her neck? That"s art? Not to me it isn"t, but then I"m an unschooled putz. To those who have spent a lifetime learning about fine art, that picture is worth countless millions of dollars.
Similarly, The New Yorker cover wasn"t meant for the average reader. It also wasn"t a smear against the Obamas; quite the contrary. The author said to himself, "I"m going to take every smear, innuendo, caricature, slur, etc. that the right wing could possibly think of and place them on a picture of Obama and Michelle in such a way as to show how stupid the Republicans really are. Didn"t you notice that the facial and physical features showed the Obamas in a pleasant and non-threatening light. They don"t depict the anger, viciousness, and aggressiveness usually associated with terrorists. The picture was flattering in the way that you can imagine Obama and Michelle goofing around and saying, "You want terrorists? Here! We"re terrorists!¦.LOL
And that's the truth.

[grendl]

I disagree.

A balloon over the head of some deranged citizen is simply a restatement of the obvious, that being brain dead morons think Barack Obama is a Muslim.

The cover was offensive, and provocative. It called for contemplation on the part of the reader, and interpretation. It lifted the bar, in a medium where Pamela Anderson's chest, and grinning preening celebrity dominates the market.

The commotion the cover caused opened the discussion about the absurdity of the GOP's insinuations regarding Barack Obama. Getting us to face our deepest fear as it were. At first I thought the editor's of the New Yorker were merely stoking those fears, but just as Hillary's constant barrage of assaults on Barack's character were proved false, so too will the insinuations brought about by this cover.

We need to become a smarter country, instead of sitting back and accepting the image of the brain dead X box playing teen zombie suckling on the TMZ teat for entertainment nourishment, challenging the young to think. The way National Lampoon, Mad Magazine and Saturday Night Live has been able to do, to name a few of the obvious.

But if turnabout is fair play, the New Yorker should in good conscience present a John McCain cover with him as the Manchurian candidate. Otherwise it will seem they're as skewed as SNL was towards Hillary at the beginning.

[Jeffomil]

The problem with your argument is that the National Lampoon, Mad Magazine and Saturday Night are KNOWN for satire. You EXPECT it. You buy or watch it FOR satire. NOT SO with the New Yorker. JUST THE OPPOSITE. Especially on their covers. Even when confronted with an image that MUST have been satire, it doesn't occur to readers of the magazine, much less the general public. The New Yorker is usually just so... STAID. It's not a satirical "review' like the magazines and TV show you mention. So staid, in fact,, that even if "satire" occurs to a viewer of the cover, it's discarded in favor a 'big mistake". That's how "out of character" this cover was, They should have known this. Shame on them,

[grendl]

I don''t know about that, the cartoons have always been the best part of the New Yorker in my opinion, other than the film reviews. For a staid publication it always had a lot of laughs.

They shouldn't be handcuffed by the right, or the lefts fear of the right. It's why we have a first amendment.

I think it was a bone headed move on the New Yorker's part, though. Because this country doesn't get satire, irony, or anything that isn't obvious and easy to digest. So much more the pity.

Still, we don't need to start book burning, or magazine cover burning for that matter. If this country is stupid enough to believe that cover, we deserve John McCain.

[shrinqrap]

Lee Seigels commentary about the New Yorker cover? Excellent.

Mr. Oppenheimers citing the Lee Seigel article? Appropriate.

7 FULL days of non-stop, wall-to-wall, all-media coverage of the New Yorker? Priceless!

[MPeter]

What a great article. Remnick needs to read this to understand how to use satire as social commentary. He missed the boat on this one.

[S1m0n]

A Modest Proposal also works because it was written by an Irishman: Jonathan Swift, Dean of St. Patrick's, Dublin. Written by an englishman, that piece would have been perceived very differently.

~~

Amidst all the defenders and decryers of the New Yorker cover, I can detect no constituency arguing that it was funny.

[mscriblerus]

Siegel's article was great. It left a few people looking silly and misguided.

[mscriblerus]

That was a great article(Siegel's) . It leaves a few people looking silly and misguided.