View Full Version : "The Age"'s Michael Leunig Joins Iranian Cartoon Contest
Skeptic
13th February 2006, 11:07 PM
From "The Jerusalem Post":
One of Australia's best-known cartoonists, Michael Leunig, on Tuesday denied entering two of his works in an Iranian newspaper's contest for cartoons about the Holocaust, saying they were sent maliciously by someone else.
A media report out of Tehran had said Leunig had submitted the first entry in the contest, launched Monday by Hamshahri, one of Iran's top five newspapers, in retaliation for the publication of drawings of the Prophet Muhammad.
Leunig vehemently denied the claim, saying he had been "set up horribly, maliciously."
I certainly believe that Leunig didn't send the cartoons to the contest himself. But the fact that cartoons he penned could be sent and accepted for the Iranian "let's make fun of the dirty jews' fake holocaust" contest, no matter who sent them, speaks volumes of what kind of drawings Leunig does--and about what kind of paper The Age is.
I only wonder which two cartoons were sent--there are so many of his cartoons that would be appropriate for that conference! Perhaps the one comparing israel, not only to nazi Germany, but to the Auschwitz extermination camp? Or maybe the one comparing Sharon to Yassin? Or the one depicting a US marine as a child-eating cannibal? Tough choice, with Leunig's prolific (if hate-filled and technically incompetent) output.
Well, one censorship problem solved: "The Age" will surely have no problem publishing the cartoons of the holocaust-denial-and-mocking, israel-demonizing, west-despising cartoon conference in Teheran; after all, they've been publishing similar stuff for years with Leunig's output.
One of Australia's best-known cartoonists, Michael Leunig, on Tuesday denied entering two of his works in an Iranian newspaper's contest for cartoons about the Holocaust, saying they were sent maliciously by someone else.
A media report out of Tehran had said Leunig had submitted the first entry in the contest, launched Monday by Hamshahri, one of Iran's top five newspapers, in retaliation for the publication of drawings of the Prophet Muhammad.
Leunig vehemently denied the claim, saying he had been "set up horribly, maliciously."
I certainly believe that Leunig didn't send the cartoons to the contest himself. But the fact that cartoons he penned could be sent and accepted for the Iranian "let's make fun of the dirty jews' fake holocaust" contest, no matter who sent them, speaks volumes of what kind of drawings Leunig does--and about what kind of paper The Age is.
I only wonder which two cartoons were sent--there are so many of his cartoons that would be appropriate for that conference! Perhaps the one comparing israel, not only to nazi Germany, but to the Auschwitz extermination camp? Or maybe the one comparing Sharon to Yassin? Or the one depicting a US marine as a child-eating cannibal? Tough choice, with Leunig's prolific (if hate-filled and technically incompetent) output.
Well, one censorship problem solved: "The Age" will surely have no problem publishing the cartoons of the holocaust-denial-and-mocking, israel-demonizing, west-despising cartoon conference in Teheran; after all, they've been publishing similar stuff for years with Leunig's output.
The Fool
13th February 2006, 11:12 PM
From "The Jerusalem Post":
I certainly believe that Leunig didn't send the cartoons to the contest himself. But the fact that cartoons he penned could be sent and accepted for the Iranian "let's make fun of the dirty jews' fake holocaust" contest, no matter who sent them, speaks volumes of what kind of drawings Leunig does--and about what kind of paper The Age is.
I only wonder which two cartoons were sent--there are so many of his cartoons that would be appropriate for that conference! Perhaps the one comparing israel, not only to nazi Germany, but to the Auschwitz extermination camp? Or maybe the one comparing Sharon to Yassin? Or the one depicting a US marine as a child-eating cannibal? Tough choice, with Leunig's prolific (if hate-filled and technically incompetent) output.
Well, one censorship problem solved: "The Age" will surely have no problem publishing the cartoons of the holocaust-denial-and-mocking, israel-demonizing, west-despising cartoon conference in Teheran; after all, they've been publishing similar stuff for years with Leunig's output.
Someone may try explaining leunig to you but i suspect it would go way over the top. Stick to looking at the pretty pictures rather than trying to figure any meanings.
I certainly believe that Leunig didn't send the cartoons to the contest himself. But the fact that cartoons he penned could be sent and accepted for the Iranian "let's make fun of the dirty jews' fake holocaust" contest, no matter who sent them, speaks volumes of what kind of drawings Leunig does--and about what kind of paper The Age is.
I only wonder which two cartoons were sent--there are so many of his cartoons that would be appropriate for that conference! Perhaps the one comparing israel, not only to nazi Germany, but to the Auschwitz extermination camp? Or maybe the one comparing Sharon to Yassin? Or the one depicting a US marine as a child-eating cannibal? Tough choice, with Leunig's prolific (if hate-filled and technically incompetent) output.
Well, one censorship problem solved: "The Age" will surely have no problem publishing the cartoons of the holocaust-denial-and-mocking, israel-demonizing, west-despising cartoon conference in Teheran; after all, they've been publishing similar stuff for years with Leunig's output.
Someone may try explaining leunig to you but i suspect it would go way over the top. Stick to looking at the pretty pictures rather than trying to figure any meanings.
Skeptic
13th February 2006, 11:23 PM
Someone may try explaining leunig to you but i suspect it would go way over the top. Stick to looking at the pretty pictures rather than trying to figure any meanings.
Hon, if they weren't going to accept it, they wouldn't announce the submission in the media.
Hon, if they weren't going to accept it, they wouldn't announce the submission in the media.
RandFan
13th February 2006, 11:40 PM
Someone may try explaining leunig to you but i suspect it would go way over the top. Stick to looking at the pretty pictures rather than trying to figure any meanings. Finally, someone who will defend cartoons. Thanks Fool. Yeah, some of the cartoons claim that the Holocaust was a hoax (http://www.wittyworld.com/images/leunig.censored.gif) but at least these are about Jews and not Muslims.
BTW, I defend this moron's right to free speech.
ETA: Yeah, that's not fair. Many people on the left and right defended the printing of the Muslim cartoons. I'm guilty as charged. Also forgive my derail. We don't really need another thread on the subject. Still it would be interesting to see how many would defend Leunig while denouncing the Muslim cartoons.
BTW, I defend this moron's right to free speech.
ETA: Yeah, that's not fair. Many people on the left and right defended the printing of the Muslim cartoons. I'm guilty as charged. Also forgive my derail. We don't really need another thread on the subject. Still it would be interesting to see how many would defend Leunig while denouncing the Muslim cartoons.
a_unique_person
13th February 2006, 11:52 PM
Correction, the cartoon you quote does not claim the holocaust was a hoax.
The Fool
13th February 2006, 11:59 PM
Finally, someone who will defend cartoons. Thanks Fool. Yeah, some of the cartoons claim that the Holocaust was a hoax (http://www.wittyworld.com/images/leunig.censored.gif) but at least these are about Jews and not Muslims.
BTW, I defend this moron's right to free speech.
The holocaust was a hoax? well, I must say that you are the first person I have ever heard try to put that spin on the cartoon....bet hey, maybe you are the cutting edge of critical thinking.
The cartoon is juxtaposing two things in the History of Israelis....triggered by the position that Sharons Gov was saying... that the occupation is necessary for peace. Leunig finds the concept that war brings peace as tragic as the words above The death camp..
Leunig has sometimes been critical of Israeli governments...a handfull of cartoons in a career of tens of thousands that are critical of just about every country, religion, political party on the planet....He annoys a lot of people. But he is persued by only a few...
so Randfan....let us all in on the holocaust is a hoax angle.
BTW, I defend this moron's right to free speech.
The holocaust was a hoax? well, I must say that you are the first person I have ever heard try to put that spin on the cartoon....bet hey, maybe you are the cutting edge of critical thinking.
The cartoon is juxtaposing two things in the History of Israelis....triggered by the position that Sharons Gov was saying... that the occupation is necessary for peace. Leunig finds the concept that war brings peace as tragic as the words above The death camp..
Leunig has sometimes been critical of Israeli governments...a handfull of cartoons in a career of tens of thousands that are critical of just about every country, religion, political party on the planet....He annoys a lot of people. But he is persued by only a few...
so Randfan....let us all in on the holocaust is a hoax angle.
The Fool
14th February 2006, 12:02 AM
Hon, if they weren't going to accept it, they wouldn't announce the submission in the media.
Is it something you take pride in ...That your understanding of political comment in western cartoons is on par with the Iranians?
Is it something you take pride in ...That your understanding of political comment in western cartoons is on par with the Iranians?
The Fool
14th February 2006, 12:20 AM
well, I'm bored with posts about cartoons....my last contribution to this thread is some words from leunig...
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/01/12/1136956298009.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/01/12/1136956298009.html
Skeptic
14th February 2006, 01:29 AM
well, I'm bored with posts about cartoons....my last contribution to this thread is some words from leunig...
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/01/12/1136956298009.html
From that article:
A month later, however, came another email from the museum cancelling my invitation because of "my strong views about Israel". I was dismayed and perplexed. What strong views about Israel were they referring to?
Oh, I dunno.
Perhaps this one:
http://members.optushome.com.au/hark/lostleunig.gif
Yeah, yeah, yeah: you draw one cartoon comparing israel to Auschwitz, and the next thing you know, people think you belittle the holocaust and hate israel.
I have a Jewish friend, a Holocaust survivor, who says she never could have lived in Israel because in her view it is a totalitarian state.
"Some of my best friends are jews".
Why do you criticise Israel and not the Palestinians?" Well, my work is usually humanistic, so in a universal sense it can be safely assumed that I'm deeply reluctant about anybody's violent policies or deeds. Political cartooning is particularly interested in the phenomena of our hypocrisy and is not so much concerned with decrying the obvious, conventional devil, but with revealing that there is a bit of the devil in all of us.
Nice logic. He's "not much concerned" with criticizing the obvious evil of the Palestinian genocidal war because it is obviously evil. Using this logic, all israel has to do is change its policy to "let's kill all the Arabs" and Leudig will stop criticizing israel, since it's now "obviously" evil and not "hypocritical" and more.
If you're obviously evil, the moral beacon, Leunig, will give you a free pass. If you're merely imperfect, he'll "explain" to you how "evil" you really are "deep down".
n this robust atmosphere I, perhaps foolishly, made a cartoon (Letters, 11/1) about that strange situation that is a person's dying days - not to have a swipe at Sharon or Israel but to open up some more existential and, dare I say it, "Shakespearean" thoughts about the pathos and wry darkness of this powerful man's demise as well as the tragedies and dilemmas in which he has been implicated.
http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/2594/leunigonsharon9za.jpg
Oh no, this is NOT a swipe at Sharon or israel. It's... Shakespearian! It's... existential! It's... full of pathos!
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/01/12/1136956298009.html
From that article:
A month later, however, came another email from the museum cancelling my invitation because of "my strong views about Israel". I was dismayed and perplexed. What strong views about Israel were they referring to?
Oh, I dunno.
Perhaps this one:
http://members.optushome.com.au/hark/lostleunig.gif
Yeah, yeah, yeah: you draw one cartoon comparing israel to Auschwitz, and the next thing you know, people think you belittle the holocaust and hate israel.
I have a Jewish friend, a Holocaust survivor, who says she never could have lived in Israel because in her view it is a totalitarian state.
"Some of my best friends are jews".
Why do you criticise Israel and not the Palestinians?" Well, my work is usually humanistic, so in a universal sense it can be safely assumed that I'm deeply reluctant about anybody's violent policies or deeds. Political cartooning is particularly interested in the phenomena of our hypocrisy and is not so much concerned with decrying the obvious, conventional devil, but with revealing that there is a bit of the devil in all of us.
Nice logic. He's "not much concerned" with criticizing the obvious evil of the Palestinian genocidal war because it is obviously evil. Using this logic, all israel has to do is change its policy to "let's kill all the Arabs" and Leudig will stop criticizing israel, since it's now "obviously" evil and not "hypocritical" and more.
If you're obviously evil, the moral beacon, Leunig, will give you a free pass. If you're merely imperfect, he'll "explain" to you how "evil" you really are "deep down".
n this robust atmosphere I, perhaps foolishly, made a cartoon (Letters, 11/1) about that strange situation that is a person's dying days - not to have a swipe at Sharon or Israel but to open up some more existential and, dare I say it, "Shakespearean" thoughts about the pathos and wry darkness of this powerful man's demise as well as the tragedies and dilemmas in which he has been implicated.
http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/2594/leunigonsharon9za.jpg
Oh no, this is NOT a swipe at Sharon or israel. It's... Shakespearian! It's... existential! It's... full of pathos!
CFLarsen
14th February 2006, 01:34 AM
I certainly believe that Leunig didn't send the cartoons to the contest himself.
Your title says:
"The Age"'s Michael Leunig Joins Iranian Cartoon Contest
From the newspaper:
One of Australia's best-known cartoonists, Michael Leunig, on Tuesday denied entering two of his works in an Iranian newspaper's contest for cartoons about the Holocaust, saying they were sent maliciously by someone else.
Rather misleading, wouldn't you say?
But the fact that cartoons he penned could be sent and accepted for the Iranian "let's make fun of the dirty jews' fake holocaust" contest, no matter who sent them, speaks volumes of what kind of drawings Leunig does--and about what kind of paper The Age is.
I only wonder which two cartoons were sent--there are so many of his cartoons that would be appropriate for that conference!
Since you don't know which cartoons were sent, how do you know his material is of this "kind"?
Are all Leunig's cartoons Jewish-related?
Your title says:
"The Age"'s Michael Leunig Joins Iranian Cartoon Contest
From the newspaper:
One of Australia's best-known cartoonists, Michael Leunig, on Tuesday denied entering two of his works in an Iranian newspaper's contest for cartoons about the Holocaust, saying they were sent maliciously by someone else.
Rather misleading, wouldn't you say?
But the fact that cartoons he penned could be sent and accepted for the Iranian "let's make fun of the dirty jews' fake holocaust" contest, no matter who sent them, speaks volumes of what kind of drawings Leunig does--and about what kind of paper The Age is.
I only wonder which two cartoons were sent--there are so many of his cartoons that would be appropriate for that conference!
Since you don't know which cartoons were sent, how do you know his material is of this "kind"?
Are all Leunig's cartoons Jewish-related?
Skeptic
14th February 2006, 01:35 AM
Since you don't know which cartoons were sent, how do you know his material is of this "kind"?
Are all Leunig's cartoons Jewish-related?
No, and not EVERYTHING Iran's leader says is holocaust-denying genocidal threats, but, in both cases, there's quite a bit to choose from.
Are all Leunig's cartoons Jewish-related?
No, and not EVERYTHING Iran's leader says is holocaust-denying genocidal threats, but, in both cases, there's quite a bit to choose from.
Kiless
14th February 2006, 02:03 AM
Interesting.
On the way into work, Leunig was heard on the news saying sadly that he felt very unfairly treated about having someone make these claims against him.
I am familiar with some of his more light-hearted work and have used some of his cartoons in class (in fact, I referred to one on these boards about the Helen Demidenko/Darville case), although they were never like the ones Skeptic printed here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1443643#post1443643). I never knew these particular ones existed and they certainly didn't spring to memory from my attending an exhibition of his works from a few years back. The impression from the radio report was a totally out-of-the-blue accusation and had no basis in prior work from the artist.
I hope this isn't an insult to you, Skeptic, but I'll be reading more about Leunig's reasoning behind creating these works (I'm pretty certain The Australian will probably do a story/interview on the matter, if they haven't done so already - I usually get my work's newspaper and have not gone into the library today). I'd like to know more about what Leunig has done in terms of global political commentary and whether what you say is in fact an indication of a really regrettable judgement on Leunig's part.
First, it was Orson Scott Card.... :(
On the way into work, Leunig was heard on the news saying sadly that he felt very unfairly treated about having someone make these claims against him.
I am familiar with some of his more light-hearted work and have used some of his cartoons in class (in fact, I referred to one on these boards about the Helen Demidenko/Darville case), although they were never like the ones Skeptic printed here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1443643#post1443643). I never knew these particular ones existed and they certainly didn't spring to memory from my attending an exhibition of his works from a few years back. The impression from the radio report was a totally out-of-the-blue accusation and had no basis in prior work from the artist.
I hope this isn't an insult to you, Skeptic, but I'll be reading more about Leunig's reasoning behind creating these works (I'm pretty certain The Australian will probably do a story/interview on the matter, if they haven't done so already - I usually get my work's newspaper and have not gone into the library today). I'd like to know more about what Leunig has done in terms of global political commentary and whether what you say is in fact an indication of a really regrettable judgement on Leunig's part.
First, it was Orson Scott Card.... :(
CFLarsen
14th February 2006, 02:23 AM
No, and not EVERYTHING Iran's leader says is holocaust-denying genocidal threats, but, in both cases, there's quite a bit to choose from.
But how do you determine that Leunig's cartoons are of this "kind"?
How many has he made of this "kind"? Out of how many?
But how do you determine that Leunig's cartoons are of this "kind"?
How many has he made of this "kind"? Out of how many?
a_unique_person
14th February 2006, 02:43 AM
But how do you determine that Leunig's cartoons are of this "kind"?
How many has he made of this "kind"? Out of how many?
If you want evidence, you won't get it.
How many has he made of this "kind"? Out of how many?
If you want evidence, you won't get it.
a_unique_person
14th February 2006, 02:44 AM
The irony about the post that Skeptic referenced, while simultaneously bashing "The Age", is that it is one of the cartoons he has drawn that "The Age" refused to publish, on the grounds that the editors thought it might offend Jewish people.
Kiless
14th February 2006, 03:55 AM
But how do you determine that Leunig's cartoons are of this "kind"?
How many has he made of this "kind"? Out of how many?
I'm currently making an effort to find out - mostly by looking at news sites in Australia and checking tonight's news broadcasts. Our national broadcaster ABC will most likely look at the case. Currently got 'The 7.30 Report' on in the background as I type (the lead story is the Bali 9 sentences, of course). I'd suggest using Google as a start and when I get to work, I'll use the Macquarie news service engine that the library has to seek out more. :)
How many has he made of this "kind"? Out of how many?
I'm currently making an effort to find out - mostly by looking at news sites in Australia and checking tonight's news broadcasts. Our national broadcaster ABC will most likely look at the case. Currently got 'The 7.30 Report' on in the background as I type (the lead story is the Bali 9 sentences, of course). I'd suggest using Google as a start and when I get to work, I'll use the Macquarie news service engine that the library has to seek out more. :)
BPSCG
14th February 2006, 06:47 AM
The holocaust was a hoax? well, I must say that you are the first person I have ever heard try to put that spin on the cartoon....bet hey, maybe you are the cutting edge of critical thinking.Gotta go with TF on this one.* The cartoon is damned antisemitic and hateful, but it doesn't fall into the Holocaust-denial category. In fact, if one takes as given that the cartoon on the left is supposed to represent Holocaust denial, then its analogous cartoon on the right is supposed to represent Israeli occupation denial - which I'll bet it ain't.
Okay, now someone tell me what embassy I'm supposed to burn down over this. Australia? Iran? France (just on general principles)?
*Okay, strange $#!+ happens from time to time...
Okay, now someone tell me what embassy I'm supposed to burn down over this. Australia? Iran? France (just on general principles)?
*Okay, strange $#!+ happens from time to time...
The Fool
14th February 2006, 05:58 PM
Gotta go with TF on this one.* The cartoon is damned antisemitic and hateful, but it doesn't fall into the Holocaust-denial category. In fact, if one takes as given that the cartoon on the left is supposed to represent Holocaust denial, then its analogous cartoon on the right is supposed to represent Israeli occupation denial - which I'll bet it ain't.
Okay, now someone tell me what embassy I'm supposed to burn down over this. Australia? Iran? France (just on general principles)?
*Okay, strange $#!+ happens from time to time...
what is it, in your opinion, that is anti-semitic about this cartoon?
Okay, now someone tell me what embassy I'm supposed to burn down over this. Australia? Iran? France (just on general principles)?
*Okay, strange $#!+ happens from time to time...
what is it, in your opinion, that is anti-semitic about this cartoon?
a_unique_person
14th February 2006, 06:15 PM
Gotta go with TF on this one.* The cartoon is damned antisemitic and hateful, but it doesn't fall into the Holocaust-denial category. In fact, if one takes as given that the cartoon on the left is supposed to represent Holocaust denial, then its analogous cartoon on the right is supposed to represent Israeli occupation denial - which I'll bet it ain't.
Okay, now someone tell me what embassy I'm supposed to burn down over this. Australia? Iran? France (just on general principles)?
*Okay, strange $#!+ happens from time to time...
He has received death threats. Apparently that's not news.
Okay, now someone tell me what embassy I'm supposed to burn down over this. Australia? Iran? France (just on general principles)?
*Okay, strange $#!+ happens from time to time...
He has received death threats. Apparently that's not news.
Mycroft
14th February 2006, 06:21 PM
He has received death threats. Apparently that's not news.
OMG! That's just like Salman Rushdie! :yikes:
Edited to add: Just kidding. It's not really like Salman Rushdie anymore than any nut-case threatening someone's life is like Salman Rushdie.
OMG! That's just like Salman Rushdie! :yikes:
Edited to add: Just kidding. It's not really like Salman Rushdie anymore than any nut-case threatening someone's life is like Salman Rushdie.
BPSCG
14th February 2006, 06:27 PM
what is it, in your opinion, that is anti-semitic about this cartoon?Anything that tries to draw a moral equivalence between Jews/Israelis and Nazis is anti-semitic. If it did so with Catholics and Nazis, it would be anti-Catholic. If did so with Australians and Nazis, it would be anti-Australian.
Anything comparing anyone who isn't a mass murderer to the Nazis is vile, filthy, and disgusting.
Go ahead; I know there was a point in your asking that question.
Anything comparing anyone who isn't a mass murderer to the Nazis is vile, filthy, and disgusting.
Go ahead; I know there was a point in your asking that question.
Mycroft
14th February 2006, 06:38 PM
Anything that tries to draw a moral equivalence between Jews/Israelis and Nazis is anti-semitic. If it did so with Catholics and Nazis, it would be anti-Catholic. If did so with Australians and Nazis, it would be anti-Australian.
Anything comparing anyone who isn't a mass murderer to the Nazis is vile, filthy, and disgusting.
Go ahead; I know there was a point in your asking that question.
Ah, but you see in the last 5 years or so about 3600 Palestinians have died in the Intifada, and it's obvious that Israel is directly responsible for these deaths, even the ones that were perpetuated by other Palestinians. This is just like the ten million or so people executed by the Nazi's in a comparable period of time, so you can plainly see that comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is perfectly valid political commentary and not anti-Semitic.
Anything comparing anyone who isn't a mass murderer to the Nazis is vile, filthy, and disgusting.
Go ahead; I know there was a point in your asking that question.
Ah, but you see in the last 5 years or so about 3600 Palestinians have died in the Intifada, and it's obvious that Israel is directly responsible for these deaths, even the ones that were perpetuated by other Palestinians. This is just like the ten million or so people executed by the Nazi's in a comparable period of time, so you can plainly see that comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is perfectly valid political commentary and not anti-Semitic.
RandFan
14th February 2006, 06:43 PM
Correction, the cartoon you quote does not claim the holocaust was a hoax.
The holocaust was a hoax? well, I must say that you are the first person I have ever heard try to put that spin on the cartoon....bet hey, maybe you are the cutting edge of critical thinking.
The cartoon is juxtaposing two things in the History of Israelis....triggered by the position that Sharons Gov was saying... that the occupation is necessary for peace. Leunig finds the concept that war brings peace as tragic as the words above The death camp..
Leunig has sometimes been critical of Israeli governments...a handfull of cartoons in a career of tens of thousands that are critical of just about every country, religion, political party on the planet....He annoys a lot of people. But he is persued by only a few...
so Randfan....let us all in on the holocaust is a hoax angle. Sorry. My mistake.
The holocaust was a hoax? well, I must say that you are the first person I have ever heard try to put that spin on the cartoon....bet hey, maybe you are the cutting edge of critical thinking.
The cartoon is juxtaposing two things in the History of Israelis....triggered by the position that Sharons Gov was saying... that the occupation is necessary for peace. Leunig finds the concept that war brings peace as tragic as the words above The death camp..
Leunig has sometimes been critical of Israeli governments...a handfull of cartoons in a career of tens of thousands that are critical of just about every country, religion, political party on the planet....He annoys a lot of people. But he is persued by only a few...
so Randfan....let us all in on the holocaust is a hoax angle. Sorry. My mistake.
Bjorn
14th February 2006, 06:44 PM
All this from the people who insisted on republishing the JP cartoons as a symbol of free speech? Shouldn't we encourage these cartoons?
I only wonder which two cartoons were sent--there are so many of his cartoons that would be appropriate for that conference! Perhaps the one comparing israel, not only to nazi Germany, but to the Auschwitz extermination camp?Yeah, yeah, yeah: you draw one cartoon comparing israel to Auschwitz, and the next thing you know, people think you belittle the holocaust and hate israel.This is just like the ten million or so people executed by the Nazi's in a comparable period of time, so comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is perfectly valid political commentary I hope they are reprinted all over the world ... ;)
I only wonder which two cartoons were sent--there are so many of his cartoons that would be appropriate for that conference! Perhaps the one comparing israel, not only to nazi Germany, but to the Auschwitz extermination camp?Yeah, yeah, yeah: you draw one cartoon comparing israel to Auschwitz, and the next thing you know, people think you belittle the holocaust and hate israel.This is just like the ten million or so people executed by the Nazi's in a comparable period of time, so comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is perfectly valid political commentary I hope they are reprinted all over the world ... ;)
The Fool
14th February 2006, 07:35 PM
Anything that tries to draw a moral equivalence between Jews/Israelis and Nazis is anti-semitic. If it did so with Catholics and Nazis, it would be anti-Catholic. If did so with Australians and Nazis, it would be anti-Australian.
Anything comparing anyone who isn't a mass murderer to the Nazis is vile, filthy, and disgusting.
Go ahead; I know there was a point in your asking that question.
It may be anti-semitic if you add your own interpretation to it and decide it is stating something...but is it really?
It is not comparing or drawing a moral equivalent between Jews and/or Israelis to Nazis. It is commenting on the Policies of the Likud party which leunig expresses as "war bings peace" foisting this apon the Israeli people is a tragedy of huge proportions.....as was the "work brings freedom" line... Leunig has always taken a big stick to governments with policies like Likud. How can saying that actions of Sharon and his government are a tragedy for Israeli Jews by juxtaposing it with another tragedy foisted apon them possibly be anti-semitic...
It can only be anti semitic if dumping on likud is anti-semitic...this is a line Likud likes but I can't see it as legitimate.
Unfortunately, it seems as soon as people see a star of david in a cartoon thier eyes glazeover...That sad little man in the cartoon is invariably the victim in leunigs drawings...If you were more familiar with his work you would recognise his "victim" Character.... This cartoon is lamenting a tragedy that he sees being foisted apon jews....
let the witch hunting continue....
Anything comparing anyone who isn't a mass murderer to the Nazis is vile, filthy, and disgusting.
Go ahead; I know there was a point in your asking that question.
It may be anti-semitic if you add your own interpretation to it and decide it is stating something...but is it really?
It is not comparing or drawing a moral equivalent between Jews and/or Israelis to Nazis. It is commenting on the Policies of the Likud party which leunig expresses as "war bings peace" foisting this apon the Israeli people is a tragedy of huge proportions.....as was the "work brings freedom" line... Leunig has always taken a big stick to governments with policies like Likud. How can saying that actions of Sharon and his government are a tragedy for Israeli Jews by juxtaposing it with another tragedy foisted apon them possibly be anti-semitic...
It can only be anti semitic if dumping on likud is anti-semitic...this is a line Likud likes but I can't see it as legitimate.
Unfortunately, it seems as soon as people see a star of david in a cartoon thier eyes glazeover...That sad little man in the cartoon is invariably the victim in leunigs drawings...If you were more familiar with his work you would recognise his "victim" Character.... This cartoon is lamenting a tragedy that he sees being foisted apon jews....
let the witch hunting continue....
a_unique_person
14th February 2006, 07:39 PM
Anything that tries to draw a moral equivalence between Jews/Israelis and Nazis is anti-semitic. If it did so with Catholics and Nazis, it would be anti-Catholic. If did so with Australians and Nazis, it would be anti-Australian.
Anything comparing anyone who isn't a mass murderer to the Nazis is vile, filthy, and disgusting.
Go ahead; I know there was a point in your asking that question.
According to the man himself, it was about the juxtaposing of two lies. One that "Work Brings Freedom" was the motto of the concentration camps, the other that "War brings Peace", that is, that the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was necessary for peace. In that regard, he is apparently in agreement with the current Israeli thinking, with the occupation being wound back as fast as possible.
As to Nazis, he's hardly the only person to bring down the wrath of Godwin on himself.
Anything comparing anyone who isn't a mass murderer to the Nazis is vile, filthy, and disgusting.
Go ahead; I know there was a point in your asking that question.
According to the man himself, it was about the juxtaposing of two lies. One that "Work Brings Freedom" was the motto of the concentration camps, the other that "War brings Peace", that is, that the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was necessary for peace. In that regard, he is apparently in agreement with the current Israeli thinking, with the occupation being wound back as fast as possible.
As to Nazis, he's hardly the only person to bring down the wrath of Godwin on himself.
Kiless
14th February 2006, 08:39 PM
Yes, I'm getting still wavering about the notion of Leunig being so insensitive, considering how many works he's done on the figure of the 'outsider', like Mr Curley... but I could be wrong. Still looking at responses in the news.
Some news links I found:
More on the situation - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18152895%255E7582,00.html
Gerad Henderson's response- http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18149864%255E7583,00.html
Leunig says further -
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cartoon-hoax-was-personal-says-leunig/2006/02/14/1139890739052.html
and in The Age too - http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/caught-in-a-hoax-leunig-finds-it-no-laughing-matter/2006/02/14/1139890738799.html
Letter in the AFR - http://afr.com/articles/2006/02/14/1139679563311.html
but I should seek the original articles referenced in that particular one.
Tried E-Library, but nothing in there as of yet, possibly too soon for articles to be referenced.
Some news links I found:
More on the situation - http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18152895%255E7582,00.html
Gerad Henderson's response- http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,18149864%255E7583,00.html
Leunig says further -
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/cartoon-hoax-was-personal-says-leunig/2006/02/14/1139890739052.html
and in The Age too - http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/caught-in-a-hoax-leunig-finds-it-no-laughing-matter/2006/02/14/1139890738799.html
Letter in the AFR - http://afr.com/articles/2006/02/14/1139679563311.html
but I should seek the original articles referenced in that particular one.
Tried E-Library, but nothing in there as of yet, possibly too soon for articles to be referenced.
WildCat
14th February 2006, 08:46 PM
According to the man himself, it was about the juxtaposing of two lies.
I doubt that to many people that gate w/ Arbeit Macht Frei on it represents a lie. To most, I'd wager, it represents unfathomable cruelty and horrors beyond comprehension. So color me unimpressed w/ his disingenuous explanation.
I doubt that to many people that gate w/ Arbeit Macht Frei on it represents a lie. To most, I'd wager, it represents unfathomable cruelty and horrors beyond comprehension. So color me unimpressed w/ his disingenuous explanation.
The Fool
14th February 2006, 08:56 PM
I doubt that to many people that gate w/ Arbeit Macht Frei on it represents a lie. To most, I'd wager, it represents unfathomable cruelty and horrors beyond comprehension. So color me unimpressed w/ his disingenuous explanation.
be unimpressed as you like. Leunig is unlikely to be attempting to impress you
be unimpressed as you like. Leunig is unlikely to be attempting to impress you
WildCat
14th February 2006, 09:01 PM
be unimpressed as you like. Leunig is unlikely to be attempting to impress you
Of course he's not, he's more after the ignorant reactionary crowd. The ones who think that the 3rd Reich atrocities in WWII are the moral equivalent of the present-day Israeli occupation/settlements.
If he really thinks that the Auschwitz gate is symbolic of a lie, then he's got the IQ of a sack of potatos.
Of course he's not, he's more after the ignorant reactionary crowd. The ones who think that the 3rd Reich atrocities in WWII are the moral equivalent of the present-day Israeli occupation/settlements.
If he really thinks that the Auschwitz gate is symbolic of a lie, then he's got the IQ of a sack of potatos.
The Fool
14th February 2006, 09:18 PM
Of course he's not, he's more after the ignorant reactionary crowd. The ones who think that the 3rd Reich atrocities in WWII are the moral equivalent of the present-day Israeli occupation/settlements.
If he really thinks that the Auschwitz gate is symbolic of a lie, then he's got the IQ of a sack of potatos.
I'm sure he will lose sleep over your misunderstanding of his message. This reaction is not unusual when readers fail to understand the point of the cartoon.
I could explain to you again how it is not saying that 3rd reich atrocities in ww2 are the moral equivalent of the present -day israeli occupation/settlement but as with any art...its in the eye of the beholder and if thats what you want to see then thats what you see.....
let the witch burning continue....
If he really thinks that the Auschwitz gate is symbolic of a lie, then he's got the IQ of a sack of potatos.
I'm sure he will lose sleep over your misunderstanding of his message. This reaction is not unusual when readers fail to understand the point of the cartoon.
I could explain to you again how it is not saying that 3rd reich atrocities in ww2 are the moral equivalent of the present -day israeli occupation/settlement but as with any art...its in the eye of the beholder and if thats what you want to see then thats what you see.....
let the witch burning continue....
RandFan
14th February 2006, 09:23 PM
let the witch burning continue....No, it's embassies. But then those cartoons only depicted Mohammad.
WildCat
14th February 2006, 09:24 PM
I'm sure he will lose sleep over your misunderstanding of his message. This reaction is not unusual when readers fail to understand the point of the cartoon.
I could explain to you again how it is not saying that 3rd reich atrocities in ww2 are the moral equivalent of the present -day israeli occupation/settlement but as with any art...its in the eye of the beholder and if thats what you want to see then thats what you see.....
let the witch burning continue....
Ah yes, it's clearly a cartoon for the intellectual elite, overflowing w/ understated symbolism and complicated minutia. Way beyond my ability to understand, apparently...
I could explain to you again how it is not saying that 3rd reich atrocities in ww2 are the moral equivalent of the present -day israeli occupation/settlement but as with any art...its in the eye of the beholder and if thats what you want to see then thats what you see.....
let the witch burning continue....
Ah yes, it's clearly a cartoon for the intellectual elite, overflowing w/ understated symbolism and complicated minutia. Way beyond my ability to understand, apparently...
RandFan
14th February 2006, 09:27 PM
Ah yes, it's clearly a cartoon for the intellectual elite, overflowing w/ understated symbolism and complicated minutia. Way beyond my ability to understand, apparently... Yeah, and I'm guessing that you couldn't see the emperors new clothes either. Oh well.
"A nudge is as good as a wink to a blind man, know what I mean"
ETA: Damn, I'm batting 1,000 for mistakes. Know, not no.
"A nudge is as good as a wink to a blind man, know what I mean"
ETA: Damn, I'm batting 1,000 for mistakes. Know, not no.
The Fool
14th February 2006, 09:30 PM
Ah yes, it's clearly a cartoon for the intellectual elite, overflowing w/ understated symbolism and complicated minutia. Way beyond my ability to understand, apparently...
What would your reaction be if someone told you it was a comment on the EEC sausage quotas? Probably that the person has a particularly keen interest and already well formed opinions on Sausage quotas and doesn't really care what leunigs opinions are on any particular topic anyway.
let the witch hunt continue.
What would your reaction be if someone told you it was a comment on the EEC sausage quotas? Probably that the person has a particularly keen interest and already well formed opinions on Sausage quotas and doesn't really care what leunigs opinions are on any particular topic anyway.
let the witch hunt continue.
The Fool
14th February 2006, 09:32 PM
Yeah, and I'm guessing that you couldn't see the emperors new clothes either. Oh well.
"A nudge is as good as a wink to a blind man, no what I mean"
to be fair randfan...your first stab at its meaning was not real great. I guess you just cannot imagine the possibility that wildcats first or your second guess (if you choose to have one) may be off the mark either.
"A nudge is as good as a wink to a blind man, no what I mean"
to be fair randfan...your first stab at its meaning was not real great. I guess you just cannot imagine the possibility that wildcats first or your second guess (if you choose to have one) may be off the mark either.
Mycroft
14th February 2006, 09:33 PM
It is not comparing or drawing a moral equivalent between Jews and/or Israelis to Nazis.
Except it is.
It is commenting on the Policies of the Likud party…
This is such an obvious and blatant lie. There is not one thing in that picture to suggest “Likud” instead of Israeli. It certainly says “Jew” by showing the same figure entering the concentration camp who is later an IDF soldier.
http://members.optushome.com.au/hark/lostleunig.gif
Except it is.
It is commenting on the Policies of the Likud party…
This is such an obvious and blatant lie. There is not one thing in that picture to suggest “Likud” instead of Israeli. It certainly says “Jew” by showing the same figure entering the concentration camp who is later an IDF soldier.
http://members.optushome.com.au/hark/lostleunig.gif
Mycroft
14th February 2006, 09:43 PM
All this from the people who insisted on republishing the JP cartoons as a symbol of free speech? Shouldn't we encourage these cartoons?
I hope they are reprinted all over the world ... ;)
Why should it be difficult for you to understand the difference between support for the concept of freedom of speech and approval of the message.
Two concepts.
Different concepts.
Concept #1:
Michael Leunig is an artist who lives in a Western Democracy that grants him the freedom to speak his mind. He has the Freedom of speech to draw his cartoons no matter who he offends by them. Because he enjoys this Freedom of speech his government will not try to silence him, and no groups will try to burn down any embassies or threaten to kill him over it.
Concept #2:
Just as Michael Leunig enjoys his freedom of speech, the rest of us have a right to react to his message so long as we do it without violence. I, Skeptic, BPSCG and others think some of his cartoons convey messages of a vile and disgusting nature, and use our own freedom of speech to say so.
Is that so hard to understand?
Is your worldview really so simplistic that needs to be explained to you?
I hope they are reprinted all over the world ... ;)
Why should it be difficult for you to understand the difference between support for the concept of freedom of speech and approval of the message.
Two concepts.
Different concepts.
Concept #1:
Michael Leunig is an artist who lives in a Western Democracy that grants him the freedom to speak his mind. He has the Freedom of speech to draw his cartoons no matter who he offends by them. Because he enjoys this Freedom of speech his government will not try to silence him, and no groups will try to burn down any embassies or threaten to kill him over it.
Concept #2:
Just as Michael Leunig enjoys his freedom of speech, the rest of us have a right to react to his message so long as we do it without violence. I, Skeptic, BPSCG and others think some of his cartoons convey messages of a vile and disgusting nature, and use our own freedom of speech to say so.
Is that so hard to understand?
Is your worldview really so simplistic that needs to be explained to you?
RandFan
14th February 2006, 09:52 PM
to be fair randfan...your first stab at its meaning was not real great. I guess you just cannot imagine the possibility that wildcats first or your second guess (if you choose to have one) may be off the mark either. Of course I could be off the mark. Happens all of the time. However I'm getting that, "ya gotta be one of the elite to get it" vibes on this one. But ok, perhaps we should just take your word for it that we are just far too pedestrian for the subtlety of Leunig.
The Fool
14th February 2006, 10:25 PM
Of course I could be off the mark. Happens all of the time. However I'm getting that, "ya gotta be one of the elite to get it" vibes on this one. But ok, perhaps we should just take your word for it that we are just far too pedestrian for the subtlety of Leunig.
quite possibly your vibe has some validity. Much of the critisizm reminds me of chest thumping jihadi street chanters......but what you have to realise is that many people in Australia have seen a lot of leunig cartoons over a long time.....People more familiar with his work are more likely to latch onto his intended meaning....people less familiar with his work and already formed strong opinions on anti-semitism are going to see a star of david and start burning the witch.
As I've said before, that sad looking little character with the big nose (look out, someone is going to read something into that too!) is his standard little innocent bystander....the victim....someone who was a victim in ww2 and is also a victim in 2002...He is juxtaposing principals, it is a truly shallow interpretation to say he is trying to equate events...
quite possibly your vibe has some validity. Much of the critisizm reminds me of chest thumping jihadi street chanters......but what you have to realise is that many people in Australia have seen a lot of leunig cartoons over a long time.....People more familiar with his work are more likely to latch onto his intended meaning....people less familiar with his work and already formed strong opinions on anti-semitism are going to see a star of david and start burning the witch.
As I've said before, that sad looking little character with the big nose (look out, someone is going to read something into that too!) is his standard little innocent bystander....the victim....someone who was a victim in ww2 and is also a victim in 2002...He is juxtaposing principals, it is a truly shallow interpretation to say he is trying to equate events...
Kopji
14th February 2006, 10:55 PM
I see the message as being more complex. The bemused "Jew" symbolizes an 'everyman' kind of Jew: A bemused observer of apparently similar events separated only by time and place. Yes there IS something to be pissed about, this is certainly going to be offensive to some people... But the 'Jew' in both panels is on the outside looking in, rather than on the inside looking out. The cartoon is not intended as a blanket condemnation of all Israel (or all Jews), but only certain political aspects and policies that seem to him as echoes of the past. (right to be offended noted).
Technically, (looking at some of his other work), Leunig is quite the minimalist. He is trying to say one simple thing and not making lots of minor or esoteric points. There is an inherent abstractness in sending a message this way. If he seems appalled that Iran would take his work and use it against Jews, that is probably exactly how he feels. Why lie about that?
Steve Benson is a favorite local cartoonist who draws for the Arizona Republic. He had the misfortune to become much hated over a similarly controversial cartoon he drew about the Oklahoma Bombing.
His insight to the matter was that political cartoons were by their nature an exaggeration or abstraction of events. A good cartoon needed to create discussion or controversy around an issue. The drawing may not even reflect the cartoonist's opinions very precisely.
Technically, (looking at some of his other work), Leunig is quite the minimalist. He is trying to say one simple thing and not making lots of minor or esoteric points. There is an inherent abstractness in sending a message this way. If he seems appalled that Iran would take his work and use it against Jews, that is probably exactly how he feels. Why lie about that?
Steve Benson is a favorite local cartoonist who draws for the Arizona Republic. He had the misfortune to become much hated over a similarly controversial cartoon he drew about the Oklahoma Bombing.
His insight to the matter was that political cartoons were by their nature an exaggeration or abstraction of events. A good cartoon needed to create discussion or controversy around an issue. The drawing may not even reflect the cartoonist's opinions very precisely.
Skeptic
15th February 2006, 12:16 AM
All this from the people who insisted on republishing the JP cartoons as a symbol of free speech? Shouldn't we encourage these cartoons?
Let me put it this way: if, as a result of his cartoon, israel and/or the jews in general:
a). burned Australian embassies.
b). called on Australia to be destroyed.
c). demanded UN resolutions making him a criminal.
d). boycotted all Australian products.
e). put pressure on the paper to fire Leunig / the editors / close the paper
f). ran around the world demonstrating "DEATH TO AUSTRALIA!!!"
Etc., etc.
...then, yes, I'd encourage him to draw as many cartoons as possible, since in that case the jews would have been engaged in a violent campaign of intimidation to silence him, and any appeal to "sensitivity" or "appeal to common sense" would be--quite rightly--seen as surrender to bullies.
As things are, however, it's rather obvious that the reaction to his cartoons is what one would expect: disgust at the man shown in editorials and internet posts. A slight difference. There is no intimidation; there's merely justified criticism.
There is a point in encouraging offensive cartoons when they are part of a fight to preserve freedom of speech against violent thugs. There is no such point when there is no threat to freedom of speech.
Let me put it this way: if, as a result of his cartoon, israel and/or the jews in general:
a). burned Australian embassies.
b). called on Australia to be destroyed.
c). demanded UN resolutions making him a criminal.
d). boycotted all Australian products.
e). put pressure on the paper to fire Leunig / the editors / close the paper
f). ran around the world demonstrating "DEATH TO AUSTRALIA!!!"
Etc., etc.
...then, yes, I'd encourage him to draw as many cartoons as possible, since in that case the jews would have been engaged in a violent campaign of intimidation to silence him, and any appeal to "sensitivity" or "appeal to common sense" would be--quite rightly--seen as surrender to bullies.
As things are, however, it's rather obvious that the reaction to his cartoons is what one would expect: disgust at the man shown in editorials and internet posts. A slight difference. There is no intimidation; there's merely justified criticism.
There is a point in encouraging offensive cartoons when they are part of a fight to preserve freedom of speech against violent thugs. There is no such point when there is no threat to freedom of speech.
a_unique_person
15th February 2006, 12:20 AM
What part of death threats is not intimidating?
Skeptic
15th February 2006, 12:21 AM
Technically, (looking at some of his other work), Leunig is quite the minimalist.
Yes, indeed he is. Leuning is a "controvertial" artist who draws in "minimalist" style.
English translation: he tries to cover his obvious lack of any artistic talent by drawing cartoons that offend as many people as possible, so that the technical inferiority of his art is ignored in favor of what "shocking messege" it has this time.
Good for job security, I suppose.
Yes, indeed he is. Leuning is a "controvertial" artist who draws in "minimalist" style.
English translation: he tries to cover his obvious lack of any artistic talent by drawing cartoons that offend as many people as possible, so that the technical inferiority of his art is ignored in favor of what "shocking messege" it has this time.
Good for job security, I suppose.
a_unique_person
15th February 2006, 12:21 AM
Still waiting for evidence.
Skeptic
15th February 2006, 12:25 AM
What part of death threats is not intimidating?
I thought you put me on ignore, AUP? Face it: you're in love with me.
Anyway, to the point:
a). Whoever issued those death threats ARE, for a change, truly a tiny minority of nutcases who are despised, or rather simply ignored, by most jews (presuming it's a jew that issued the threats--might be simply some nutcase). I would consider it EXTREMELY unlikely that anybody on this forum, or anybody with a position of even moderate influence in the jewish / israeli community, or 99% of the jewish / israeli public, would consider such a threat as anything but despicable, let alone support it.
b). Virtually all public figures occassionally get death threats; it comes with the territory. The point is how serious / common they are. In Leuning's case, we have--possibly--a lone nutcase; in the Danish cartoon bruhaha, or previously in the case of Salman Rushdie, we have millions of well-armed thugs and government which support them.
A slight difference, I'd say, in the level of intimidation.
I thought you put me on ignore, AUP? Face it: you're in love with me.
Anyway, to the point:
a). Whoever issued those death threats ARE, for a change, truly a tiny minority of nutcases who are despised, or rather simply ignored, by most jews (presuming it's a jew that issued the threats--might be simply some nutcase). I would consider it EXTREMELY unlikely that anybody on this forum, or anybody with a position of even moderate influence in the jewish / israeli community, or 99% of the jewish / israeli public, would consider such a threat as anything but despicable, let alone support it.
b). Virtually all public figures occassionally get death threats; it comes with the territory. The point is how serious / common they are. In Leuning's case, we have--possibly--a lone nutcase; in the Danish cartoon bruhaha, or previously in the case of Salman Rushdie, we have millions of well-armed thugs and government which support them.
A slight difference, I'd say, in the level of intimidation.
The Fool
15th February 2006, 12:39 AM
Let me put it this way: if, as a result of his cartoon, israel and/or the jews in general:
a). burned Australian embassies.
b). called on Australia to be destroyed.
c). demanded UN resolutions making him a criminal.
d). boycotted all Australian products.
e). put pressure on the paper to fire Leunig / the editors / close the paper
f). ran around the world demonstrating "DEATH TO AUSTRALIA!!!"
Etc., etc.
...then, yes, I'd encourage him to draw as many cartoons as possible, since in that case the jews would have been engaged in a violent campaign of intimidation to silence him, and any appeal to "sensitivity" or "appeal to common sense" would be--quite rightly--seen as surrender to bullies.
As things are, however, it's rather obvious that the reaction to his cartoons is what one would expect: disgust at the man shown in editorials and internet posts. A slight difference. There is no intimidation; there's merely justified criticism.
There is a point in encouraging offensive cartoons when they are part of a fight to preserve freedom of speech against violent thugs. There is no such point when there is no threat to freedom of speech.
....Because some nutjob Jihadis are worse then what you do is fine....
You call what you do here "justified criticism" you have a deliberate lie in the title of this thread. Are blatant lies justified criticism skeppers?
a). burned Australian embassies.
b). called on Australia to be destroyed.
c). demanded UN resolutions making him a criminal.
d). boycotted all Australian products.
e). put pressure on the paper to fire Leunig / the editors / close the paper
f). ran around the world demonstrating "DEATH TO AUSTRALIA!!!"
Etc., etc.
...then, yes, I'd encourage him to draw as many cartoons as possible, since in that case the jews would have been engaged in a violent campaign of intimidation to silence him, and any appeal to "sensitivity" or "appeal to common sense" would be--quite rightly--seen as surrender to bullies.
As things are, however, it's rather obvious that the reaction to his cartoons is what one would expect: disgust at the man shown in editorials and internet posts. A slight difference. There is no intimidation; there's merely justified criticism.
There is a point in encouraging offensive cartoons when they are part of a fight to preserve freedom of speech against violent thugs. There is no such point when there is no threat to freedom of speech.
....Because some nutjob Jihadis are worse then what you do is fine....
You call what you do here "justified criticism" you have a deliberate lie in the title of this thread. Are blatant lies justified criticism skeppers?
CFLarsen
15th February 2006, 01:07 AM
The most criticized JP cartoon by far is the one where Muhammed's turban is a bomb.
How does everyone interpret that cartoon? What's the point - message - of that cartoon?
How does everyone interpret that cartoon? What's the point - message - of that cartoon?
Elaedith
15th February 2006, 01:32 AM
The most criticized JP cartoon by far is the one where Muhammed's turban is a bomb.
How does everyone interpret that cartoon? What's the point - message - of that cartoon?
Some see it as portraying all followers of Muhammed or even people of Middle Eastern descent as terrorists.
Alternatively, it could be interpreted as a comment about what some extremists will do in the name of religion.
How does everyone interpret that cartoon? What's the point - message - of that cartoon?
Some see it as portraying all followers of Muhammed or even people of Middle Eastern descent as terrorists.
Alternatively, it could be interpreted as a comment about what some extremists will do in the name of religion.
CFLarsen
15th February 2006, 01:44 AM
Some see it as portraying all followers of Muhammed or even people of Middle Eastern descent as terrorists.
Alternatively, it could be interpreted as a comment about what some extremists will do in the name of religion.
The last one is the intended one.
Strange how things can be misunderstood, especially if you want to misunderstand....
Alternatively, it could be interpreted as a comment about what some extremists will do in the name of religion.
The last one is the intended one.
Strange how things can be misunderstood, especially if you want to misunderstand....
a_unique_person
15th February 2006, 02:00 AM
Still waiting for evidence.
CFLarsen
15th February 2006, 02:13 AM
a). Whoever issued those death threats ARE, for a change, truly a tiny minority of nutcases who are despised, or rather simply ignored, by most jews (presuming it's a jew that issued the threats--might be simply some nutcase). I would consider it EXTREMELY unlikely that anybody on this forum, or anybody with a position of even moderate influence in the jewish / israeli community, or 99% of the jewish / israeli public, would consider such a threat as anything but despicable, let alone support it.
Precisely how big does a group have to be, before you will consider their death threats serious?
The Unabomber was only one person. You don't consider him dangerous?
Precisely how big does a group have to be, before you will consider their death threats serious?
The Unabomber was only one person. You don't consider him dangerous?
The Fool
15th February 2006, 02:25 AM
Yes, indeed he is. Leuning is a "controvertial" artist who draws in "minimalist" style.
English translation: he tries to cover his obvious lack of any artistic talent by drawing cartoons that offend as many people as possible, so that the technical inferiority of his art is ignored in favor of what "shocking messege" it has this time.
Good for job security, I suppose.
Can you tell us in what way his art is technically inferior? In the same way the french impressionists are technically inferior to the guy that did the airbrush mural on your car?
Pushing mirrors in the faces of slogan chanting philistines has its hazards. But its the price people like leunig sometimes have to pay...
let the witch hunt continue...
English translation: he tries to cover his obvious lack of any artistic talent by drawing cartoons that offend as many people as possible, so that the technical inferiority of his art is ignored in favor of what "shocking messege" it has this time.
Good for job security, I suppose.
Can you tell us in what way his art is technically inferior? In the same way the french impressionists are technically inferior to the guy that did the airbrush mural on your car?
Pushing mirrors in the faces of slogan chanting philistines has its hazards. But its the price people like leunig sometimes have to pay...
let the witch hunt continue...
a_unique_person
15th February 2006, 02:44 AM
No evidence yet.
BPSCG
15th February 2006, 05:19 AM
It may be anti-semitic if you add your own interpretation to it and decide it is stating something...but is it really?Um, I think it should be obvious, even to a blind man, even to a Fool, that it's antisemitic. If it isn't obvious to you, then there's no point in trying to explain it to you.
Question: Could you please describe a cartoon that you would find antisemitic? Use your imagination.
Question: Could you please describe a cartoon that you would find antisemitic? Use your imagination.
WildCat
15th February 2006, 05:22 AM
Can you tell us in what way his art is technically inferior?
If I could draw it, it's technically inferior. And I would have no trouble drawing cartoons of that quality.
If I could draw it, it's technically inferior. And I would have no trouble drawing cartoons of that quality.
Skeptic
15th February 2006, 06:13 AM
Can you tell us in what way his art is technically inferior? In the same way the french impressionists are technically inferior to the guy that did the airbrush mural on your car?
Hmmmm, let's see... a quick search of the web found the following images, each one of them quite typical of the artist(s) in question:
French impressionists:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/manet/dejeuner/manet.dejeuner-sur-herbe.jpg
Leunig:
http://www.leunig.com.au/fullsized/images/Leunig_Cartoons86.jpg
An eight-year-old:
http://www.utmb.edu/km/Currents/2005/EarthDay_Art_200pxls.gif
So, let's see. Suppose you didn't know who made these pictures. Would you say item #2 more like item #1... or more like item #3?
I think the answer's obvious. If anything, #3 is technically superior to #2...
Pushing mirrors in the faces of slogan chanting philistines has its hazards.
True, true: they might hit back with character assassination and say you have no drawing talent just because, er, well, you obviously don't.
As for the "car mural" thing: a great work of art has both technical proficiency and depth of feeling and insight. A car mural, or a tatoo, is not great art since, typically, it has technical proficiency, but is used in the service of creating trite, cliched images.
Leunig, however, like many "progressives" artists, thinks that they can be great artists without technical proficiency--merely by painting what they think is some sort of deep insight. Alas, as in his case, the result is almost always a work that lacks both technical proficiency and insight.
Leunig's a typical example. His "insights" span the range from "trite cliche" to "deeply offensive"; in that respect, Leunig is a lot more like the car-mural painter than he is like the impressionists (with apologies to car-mural spray-painters, who at least usually do not deliberately offend people with their images). The difference is, the car mural painter usually has far greater technical proficiency.
Hmmmm, let's see... a quick search of the web found the following images, each one of them quite typical of the artist(s) in question:
French impressionists:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/manet/dejeuner/manet.dejeuner-sur-herbe.jpg
Leunig:
http://www.leunig.com.au/fullsized/images/Leunig_Cartoons86.jpg
An eight-year-old:
http://www.utmb.edu/km/Currents/2005/EarthDay_Art_200pxls.gif
So, let's see. Suppose you didn't know who made these pictures. Would you say item #2 more like item #1... or more like item #3?
I think the answer's obvious. If anything, #3 is technically superior to #2...
Pushing mirrors in the faces of slogan chanting philistines has its hazards.
True, true: they might hit back with character assassination and say you have no drawing talent just because, er, well, you obviously don't.
As for the "car mural" thing: a great work of art has both technical proficiency and depth of feeling and insight. A car mural, or a tatoo, is not great art since, typically, it has technical proficiency, but is used in the service of creating trite, cliched images.
Leunig, however, like many "progressives" artists, thinks that they can be great artists without technical proficiency--merely by painting what they think is some sort of deep insight. Alas, as in his case, the result is almost always a work that lacks both technical proficiency and insight.
Leunig's a typical example. His "insights" span the range from "trite cliche" to "deeply offensive"; in that respect, Leunig is a lot more like the car-mural painter than he is like the impressionists (with apologies to car-mural spray-painters, who at least usually do not deliberately offend people with their images). The difference is, the car mural painter usually has far greater technical proficiency.
CFLarsen
15th February 2006, 07:13 AM
Skeptic,
Precisely how big does a group have to be, before you will consider their death threats serious?
The Unabomber was only one person. You don't consider him dangerous?
Precisely how big does a group have to be, before you will consider their death threats serious?
The Unabomber was only one person. You don't consider him dangerous?
Skeptic
15th February 2006, 07:19 AM
Skeptic,
Precisely how big does a group have to be, before you will consider their death threats serious?
The larger, the more dangerous.
Therefore:
Being theathened with death by a lone nut is not the same is being threathened with death by the Ayatollah Humeini and his millions of supporters.
Judging by the number and ferocity of the threats, Rushdie and the Danish cartoonists are about about 10,000,000 times (conservatively) more threathened than Leunig.
Which might be the reason that a death threat from a lone nut who represents nobody but himself is not news; it's an attempt from him to put on the "victim for speaking the truth" cloak, but like most of what he says, it's not convincing.
Precisely how big does a group have to be, before you will consider their death threats serious?
The larger, the more dangerous.
Therefore:
Being theathened with death by a lone nut is not the same is being threathened with death by the Ayatollah Humeini and his millions of supporters.
Judging by the number and ferocity of the threats, Rushdie and the Danish cartoonists are about about 10,000,000 times (conservatively) more threathened than Leunig.
Which might be the reason that a death threat from a lone nut who represents nobody but himself is not news; it's an attempt from him to put on the "victim for speaking the truth" cloak, but like most of what he says, it's not convincing.
RandFan
15th February 2006, 07:39 AM
Which might be the reason that a death threat from a lone nut who represents nobody but himself is not news; it's an attempt from him to put on the "victim for speaking the truth" cloak, but like most of what he says, it's not convincing. I agree with you skeptic but let's keep in mind that nut jobs do kill people from time to time and that it is very intimidating for those who do receieve the threat.
Skeptic
15th February 2006, 08:40 AM
I agree with you skeptic but let's keep in mind that nut jobs do kill people from time to time and that it is very intimidating for those who do receieve the threat.
I'm not arguing against taking the threat seriously. I'm arguing against making it a news item when it's not, or making yourself into a "martyr" by advertising the fact that you got such a threat. He should go to the police, not to the press.
I'm not arguing against taking the threat seriously. I'm arguing against making it a news item when it's not, or making yourself into a "martyr" by advertising the fact that you got such a threat. He should go to the police, not to the press.
ImaginalDisc
15th February 2006, 11:38 AM
Anything that tries to draw a moral equivalence between Jews/Israelis and Nazis is anti-semitic. If it did so with Catholics and Nazis, it would be anti-Catholic. If did so with Australians and Nazis, it would be anti-Australian.
Anything comparing anyone who isn't a mass murderer to the Nazis is vile, filthy, and disgusting.
Go ahead; I know there was a point in your asking that question.
Why must you bundle opinions and ideologies together? Are they cheaper by the dozen? You're free to take yours that way, but the rest of us don't. A criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitism. Entertain for the moment that it might simply be a criticism of the government and its policies.
Comparing group X to Nazis may be immature, irrelevent, satirical, or even possibly on point, but that doesn't make it hate speach against group X. Please, put that on a post-it note on your monitor.
edit: spelling
Anything comparing anyone who isn't a mass murderer to the Nazis is vile, filthy, and disgusting.
Go ahead; I know there was a point in your asking that question.
Why must you bundle opinions and ideologies together? Are they cheaper by the dozen? You're free to take yours that way, but the rest of us don't. A criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitism. Entertain for the moment that it might simply be a criticism of the government and its policies.
Comparing group X to Nazis may be immature, irrelevent, satirical, or even possibly on point, but that doesn't make it hate speach against group X. Please, put that on a post-it note on your monitor.
edit: spelling
BPSCG
15th February 2006, 12:00 PM
A criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitism. Did I ever claim it was? Please show me where I said that, so I can post a retraction.
Entertain for the moment that it might simply be a criticism of the government and its policies.And if someone wants to make the point that Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank are unjust, there are probably 10,000 ways of doing it without making an odious comparison to the Nazis.
These cartoons say (to me, and to a lot of people, anyway), "Isn't it ironic how similar today's Jews are to the Nazis who persecuted them in 1942?"
If the cartoonist really believes modern-day Israel is morally comparable to Nazi Germany, then he is an ignorant ass.
If he doesn't believe it, then he is a hypocrite and an antisemite.
Which is it?
Entertain for the moment that it might simply be a criticism of the government and its policies.And if someone wants to make the point that Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank are unjust, there are probably 10,000 ways of doing it without making an odious comparison to the Nazis.
These cartoons say (to me, and to a lot of people, anyway), "Isn't it ironic how similar today's Jews are to the Nazis who persecuted them in 1942?"
If the cartoonist really believes modern-day Israel is morally comparable to Nazi Germany, then he is an ignorant ass.
If he doesn't believe it, then he is a hypocrite and an antisemite.
Which is it?
ImaginalDisc
15th February 2006, 12:03 PM
Did I ever claim it was? Please show me where I said that, so I can post a retraction.
I already did.
Anything comparing anyone who isn't a mass murderer to the Nazis is vile, filthy, and disgusting.
What follows is more bundling on your part:
And if someone wants to make the point that Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank are unjust, there are probably 10,000 ways of doing it without making an odious comparison to the Nazis.
These cartoons say (to me, and to a lot of people, anyway), "Isn't it ironic how similar today's Jews are to the Nazis who persecuted them in 1942?"
If the cartoonist really believes modern-day Israel is morally comparable to Nazi Germany, then he is an ignorant ass.
If he doesn't believe it, then he is a hypocrite and an antisemite.
Which is it?
Oh, I particularly enjoy the false dichotomy at the end.
I already did.
Anything comparing anyone who isn't a mass murderer to the Nazis is vile, filthy, and disgusting.
What follows is more bundling on your part:
And if someone wants to make the point that Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank are unjust, there are probably 10,000 ways of doing it without making an odious comparison to the Nazis.
These cartoons say (to me, and to a lot of people, anyway), "Isn't it ironic how similar today's Jews are to the Nazis who persecuted them in 1942?"
If the cartoonist really believes modern-day Israel is morally comparable to Nazi Germany, then he is an ignorant ass.
If he doesn't believe it, then he is a hypocrite and an antisemite.
Which is it?
Oh, I particularly enjoy the false dichotomy at the end.
BPSCG
15th February 2006, 12:13 PM
Okay, this is totally off the wall.
You claim that... A criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitism.
I ask you to show me where I said that, and your answer is
I already did.Anything comparing anyone who isn't a mass murderer to the Nazis is vile, filthy, and disgusting.
Summary:
I ask you to show me where I said criticism of Israel = antisemitism;
You dig up a quote where I said comparing anyone who isn't a mass murderer to Nazis is vile.You make no sense. Good-bye.
You claim that... A criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-Semitism.
I ask you to show me where I said that, and your answer is
I already did.Anything comparing anyone who isn't a mass murderer to the Nazis is vile, filthy, and disgusting.
Summary:
I ask you to show me where I said criticism of Israel = antisemitism;
You dig up a quote where I said comparing anyone who isn't a mass murderer to Nazis is vile.You make no sense. Good-bye.
Kopji
15th February 2006, 12:18 PM
Yes, indeed he is. Leuning is a "controversial" artist who draws in "minimalist" style.
English translation: he tries to cover his obvious lack of any artistic talent by drawing cartoons that offend as many people as possible, so that the technical inferiority of his art is ignored in favor of what "shocking messege" it has this time.
Good for job security, I suppose.
I had never heard of the artist before or seen his work, (hey that happens sometimes). I spent a couple hours looking through his work and decided I like him. Maybe I will buy some of his books. :)
Most of his work is not very controversial. His point of view of the world could probably be echoed by Tolkien:
There is more in you of good than you know... Some courage and some wisdom, blended in measure. If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.
To say he is anti Israel or Jewish or only wants to piss as many people off as he can seems to miss his actual pov.
The character in the concentration camp cartoon is, as I mentioned earlier, an "everyman". He uses this character repeatedly in his work in various contexts, but the context is always as a bemused observer to events. This technique is inclusive - for just this moment he thinks of himself as Jewish and this is what he sees. There is never perfection in the technique, but it cannot be done by seeing all Jews as being alike, or being evil.
http://www.curlyflat.net/index.php
...Leunig uses the 'everyperson' to convey many of his ideas. In his words: "a small, wide-eyed creature with a huge nose; a naked angel, ageless and genderless; an innocent messenger-fool presenting no possible threat and therefore permitted to state any case or express any feeling shamelessly". I watched Leunig draw this character for me. He draws him from the inside out; starting with the pupil of the eye, not a dot but carefully drawn; then circumscribes the eye, adds a nose, completes the head then follows down through the body. He does not draw quickly and every stroke is carefully considered and executed.
Few of the characters are strong and their wiggly outlines convey precariousness; the fragility of the ego in the face of a predominantly cruel and depressing world.
English translation: he tries to cover his obvious lack of any artistic talent by drawing cartoons that offend as many people as possible, so that the technical inferiority of his art is ignored in favor of what "shocking messege" it has this time.
Good for job security, I suppose.
I had never heard of the artist before or seen his work, (hey that happens sometimes). I spent a couple hours looking through his work and decided I like him. Maybe I will buy some of his books. :)
Most of his work is not very controversial. His point of view of the world could probably be echoed by Tolkien:
There is more in you of good than you know... Some courage and some wisdom, blended in measure. If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world.
To say he is anti Israel or Jewish or only wants to piss as many people off as he can seems to miss his actual pov.
The character in the concentration camp cartoon is, as I mentioned earlier, an "everyman". He uses this character repeatedly in his work in various contexts, but the context is always as a bemused observer to events. This technique is inclusive - for just this moment he thinks of himself as Jewish and this is what he sees. There is never perfection in the technique, but it cannot be done by seeing all Jews as being alike, or being evil.
http://www.curlyflat.net/index.php
...Leunig uses the 'everyperson' to convey many of his ideas. In his words: "a small, wide-eyed creature with a huge nose; a naked angel, ageless and genderless; an innocent messenger-fool presenting no possible threat and therefore permitted to state any case or express any feeling shamelessly". I watched Leunig draw this character for me. He draws him from the inside out; starting with the pupil of the eye, not a dot but carefully drawn; then circumscribes the eye, adds a nose, completes the head then follows down through the body. He does not draw quickly and every stroke is carefully considered and executed.
Few of the characters are strong and their wiggly outlines convey precariousness; the fragility of the ego in the face of a predominantly cruel and depressing world.
ImaginalDisc
15th February 2006, 12:20 PM
Okay, this is totally off the wall.
You claim that...
I ask you to show me where I said that, and your answer is
Summary:
I ask you to show me where I said criticism of Israel = antisemitism;
You dig up a quote where I said comparing anyone who isn't a mass murderer to Nazis is vile.You make no sense. Good-bye.
You wrote this:
Anything that tries to draw a moral equivalence between Jews/Israelis and Nazis is anti-semitic.
Do you deny that?
You claim that...
I ask you to show me where I said that, and your answer is
Summary:
I ask you to show me where I said criticism of Israel = antisemitism;
You dig up a quote where I said comparing anyone who isn't a mass murderer to Nazis is vile.You make no sense. Good-bye.
You wrote this:
Anything that tries to draw a moral equivalence between Jews/Israelis and Nazis is anti-semitic.
Do you deny that?
BPSCG
15th February 2006, 12:35 PM
You wrote this:
Anything that tries to draw a moral equivalence between Jews/Israelis and Nazis is anti-semitic.
Do you deny that?And show me how that statement equates to "criticism of Israel is necessarily anti-Semitism."
Rather, show everyone else. I'm through with you.
Anything that tries to draw a moral equivalence between Jews/Israelis and Nazis is anti-semitic.
Do you deny that?And show me how that statement equates to "criticism of Israel is necessarily anti-Semitism."
Rather, show everyone else. I'm through with you.
ImaginalDisc
15th February 2006, 12:38 PM
And show me how that statement equates to "criticism of Israel is necessarily anti-Semitism."
Rather, show everyone else. I'm through with you.
Forgive me, your highness. Whatever shall I do without your patronizing tone and uncalled for rants, and spurious claims?
Incidentally, the facts speak for themselves. Your opnions however, are held up by hot air.
Rather, show everyone else. I'm through with you.
Forgive me, your highness. Whatever shall I do without your patronizing tone and uncalled for rants, and spurious claims?
Incidentally, the facts speak for themselves. Your opnions however, are held up by hot air.
The Fool
15th February 2006, 02:10 PM
Can you tell us in what way his art is technically inferior? In the same way the french impressionists are technically inferior to the guy that did the airbrush mural on your car?
Hmmmm, let's see... a quick search of the web found the following images, each one of them quite typical of the artist(s) in question:
French impressionists:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/manet/dejeuner/manet.dejeuner-sur-herbe.jpg
Leunig:
http://www.leunig.com.au/fullsized/images/Leunig_Cartoons86.jpg
An eight-year-old:
http://www.utmb.edu/km/Currents/2005/EarthDay_Art_200pxls.gif
So, let's see. Suppose you didn't know who made these pictures. Would you say item #2 more like item #1... or more like item #3?
I think the answer's obvious. If anything, #3 is technically superior to #2...
Pushing mirrors in the faces of slogan chanting philistines has its hazards.
True, true: they might hit back with character assassination and say you have no drawing talent just because, er, well, you obviously don't.
As for the "car mural" thing: a great work of art has both technical proficiency and depth of feeling and insight. A car mural, or a tatoo, is not great art since, typically, it has technical proficiency, but is used in the service of creating trite, cliched images.
Leunig, however, like many "progressives" artists, thinks that they can be great artists without technical proficiency--merely by painting what they think is some sort of deep insight. Alas, as in his case, the result is almost always a work that lacks both technical proficiency and insight.
Leunig's a typical example. His "insights" span the range from "trite cliche" to "deeply offensive"; in that respect, Leunig is a lot more like the car-mural painter than he is like the impressionists (with apologies to car-mural spray-painters, who at least usually do not deliberately offend people with their images). The difference is, the car mural painter usually has far greater technical proficiency.
Jeepers skeppers, lucky the cubists don't realise they can't paint.... I'll have a word to them about getting the eyes and ears on the correct parts of the heads......idiots.
so anyway...you don't like his drawings and you reject his conclusions. I bet he is gutted. But that is not the issue,the issue is you manufacturing meaning in them in order to reinforce your own obsessions..
Hmmmm, let's see... a quick search of the web found the following images, each one of them quite typical of the artist(s) in question:
French impressionists:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/manet/dejeuner/manet.dejeuner-sur-herbe.jpg
Leunig:
http://www.leunig.com.au/fullsized/images/Leunig_Cartoons86.jpg
An eight-year-old:
http://www.utmb.edu/km/Currents/2005/EarthDay_Art_200pxls.gif
So, let's see. Suppose you didn't know who made these pictures. Would you say item #2 more like item #1... or more like item #3?
I think the answer's obvious. If anything, #3 is technically superior to #2...
Pushing mirrors in the faces of slogan chanting philistines has its hazards.
True, true: they might hit back with character assassination and say you have no drawing talent just because, er, well, you obviously don't.
As for the "car mural" thing: a great work of art has both technical proficiency and depth of feeling and insight. A car mural, or a tatoo, is not great art since, typically, it has technical proficiency, but is used in the service of creating trite, cliched images.
Leunig, however, like many "progressives" artists, thinks that they can be great artists without technical proficiency--merely by painting what they think is some sort of deep insight. Alas, as in his case, the result is almost always a work that lacks both technical proficiency and insight.
Leunig's a typical example. His "insights" span the range from "trite cliche" to "deeply offensive"; in that respect, Leunig is a lot more like the car-mural painter than he is like the impressionists (with apologies to car-mural spray-painters, who at least usually do not deliberately offend people with their images). The difference is, the car mural painter usually has far greater technical proficiency.
Jeepers skeppers, lucky the cubists don't realise they can't paint.... I'll have a word to them about getting the eyes and ears on the correct parts of the heads......idiots.
so anyway...you don't like his drawings and you reject his conclusions. I bet he is gutted. But that is not the issue,the issue is you manufacturing meaning in them in order to reinforce your own obsessions..
The Fool
15th February 2006, 02:19 PM
If I could draw it, it's technically inferior. And I would have no trouble drawing cartoons of that quality.
Go ahead, I look forward to you becomeing a renown cartoonist...its that easy (apparently).
Lot of people claim this....I can paint better than picasso how come that bastard got famous and I don't....can you think of any reasons?
Go ahead, I look forward to you becomeing a renown cartoonist...its that easy (apparently).
Lot of people claim this....I can paint better than picasso how come that bastard got famous and I don't....can you think of any reasons?
a_unique_person
15th February 2006, 02:20 PM
Did I ever claim it was? Please show me where I said that, so I can post a retraction.
And if someone wants to make the point that Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank are unjust, there are probably 10,000 ways of doing it without making an odious comparison to the Nazis.
These cartoons say (to me, and to a lot of people, anyway), "Isn't it ironic how similar today's Jews are to the Nazis who persecuted them in 1942?"
If the cartoonist really believes modern-day Israel is morally comparable to Nazi Germany, then he is an ignorant ass.
If he doesn't believe it, then he is a hypocrite and an antisemite.
Which is it?
You are taking the wrong interpretation. He is saying that occupying people is an act of war. War brings peace. An oxymoron. A lot of people in Israel and Jews around the world would agree with that sentiment.
And if someone wants to make the point that Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank are unjust, there are probably 10,000 ways of doing it without making an odious comparison to the Nazis.
These cartoons say (to me, and to a lot of people, anyway), "Isn't it ironic how similar today's Jews are to the Nazis who persecuted them in 1942?"
If the cartoonist really believes modern-day Israel is morally comparable to Nazi Germany, then he is an ignorant ass.
If he doesn't believe it, then he is a hypocrite and an antisemite.
Which is it?
You are taking the wrong interpretation. He is saying that occupying people is an act of war. War brings peace. An oxymoron. A lot of people in Israel and Jews around the world would agree with that sentiment.
BPSCG
15th February 2006, 03:21 PM
According to the man himself, it was about the juxtaposing of two lies. And of the millions, even billions of lies that have been told throughout history, the one best comparison he could make was to the Nazis' infamous one? Yeah, right.
One that "Work Brings Freedom" was the motto of the concentration camps, the other that "War brings Peace", that is, that the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was necessary for peace. And is "War Brings Peace" the motto of the occupation?
You are taking the wrong interpretation. He is saying that occupying people is an act of war. And you know this because...
Sorry, I'm declaring Occam here: The simplest explanation, that requires the fewest assumptions, is that he's comparing Jews behind Nazi barbed wire to Palestinians behind Israeli barbed wire. That interpretation requires no assumptions about the motto of the Israeli occupation, no assumptions about Israeli motives, no assumptions about whether or not an occupation is an act of war, no assumptions that Israel believes that an act of war will bring peace. Your interpretation requires all of those assumptions.
I don't believe I'm being doctrinaire about this; I'm already on record as disagreeing with Skeptic about it being about Holocaust denial. But if this isn't a clear attempt to equate Israelis with Nazis, then there isn't any such thing.
One that "Work Brings Freedom" was the motto of the concentration camps, the other that "War brings Peace", that is, that the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza was necessary for peace. And is "War Brings Peace" the motto of the occupation?
You are taking the wrong interpretation. He is saying that occupying people is an act of war. And you know this because...
Sorry, I'm declaring Occam here: The simplest explanation, that requires the fewest assumptions, is that he's comparing Jews behind Nazi barbed wire to Palestinians behind Israeli barbed wire. That interpretation requires no assumptions about the motto of the Israeli occupation, no assumptions about Israeli motives, no assumptions about whether or not an occupation is an act of war, no assumptions that Israel believes that an act of war will bring peace. Your interpretation requires all of those assumptions.
I don't believe I'm being doctrinaire about this; I'm already on record as disagreeing with Skeptic about it being about Holocaust denial. But if this isn't a clear attempt to equate Israelis with Nazis, then there isn't any such thing.
ImaginalDisc
15th February 2006, 03:26 PM
And of the millions, even billions of lies that have been told throughout history, the one best comparison he could make was to the Nazis' infamous one? Yeah, right.
And is "War Brings Peace" the motto of the occupation?
No, "War is Peace" is a quote from 1984.
Sorry, I'm declaring Occam here: The simplest explanation, that requires the fewest assumptions, is that he's comparing Jews behind Nazi barbed wire to Palestinians behind Israeli barbed wire. That interpretation requires no assumptions about the motto of the Israeli occupation, no assumptions about Israeli motives, no assumptions about whether or not an occupation is an act of war, no assumptions that Israel believes that an act of war will bring peace. Your interpretation requires all of those assumptions.
Merely because it's the first thing that crossed your mind, that does not make it the most logical conclusion. Your interpretation requires hostile intent, and that is an assumption.
I don't believe I'm being doctrinaire about this; I'm already on record as disagreeing with Skeptic about it being about Holocaust denial. But if this isn't a clear attempt to equate Israelis with Nazis, then there isn't any such thing.
Let's try this interpreation on for size. Let's say that the cartoon is meant to compare the prisons the Jews endured, to the prison they've built for themselves.
And is "War Brings Peace" the motto of the occupation?
No, "War is Peace" is a quote from 1984.
Sorry, I'm declaring Occam here: The simplest explanation, that requires the fewest assumptions, is that he's comparing Jews behind Nazi barbed wire to Palestinians behind Israeli barbed wire. That interpretation requires no assumptions about the motto of the Israeli occupation, no assumptions about Israeli motives, no assumptions about whether or not an occupation is an act of war, no assumptions that Israel believes that an act of war will bring peace. Your interpretation requires all of those assumptions.
Merely because it's the first thing that crossed your mind, that does not make it the most logical conclusion. Your interpretation requires hostile intent, and that is an assumption.
I don't believe I'm being doctrinaire about this; I'm already on record as disagreeing with Skeptic about it being about Holocaust denial. But if this isn't a clear attempt to equate Israelis with Nazis, then there isn't any such thing.
Let's try this interpreation on for size. Let's say that the cartoon is meant to compare the prisons the Jews endured, to the prison they've built for themselves.
geni
15th February 2006, 03:45 PM
Sorry, I'm declaring Occam here: The simplest explanation, that requires the fewest assumptions, is that he's comparing Jews behind Nazi barbed wire to Palestinians behind Israeli barbed wire.
Doesn't work to well since it ignores the guy in the forground.
The guy looks the same in both parts of the drawing. In the second he is carrying a gun. It could therefor be read as compareing the jews going into the camps with the israeli's in the IDF haveing to follow what the cartoonist is presenting as in illogical pollicy.
Doesn't work to well since it ignores the guy in the forground.
The guy looks the same in both parts of the drawing. In the second he is carrying a gun. It could therefor be read as compareing the jews going into the camps with the israeli's in the IDF haveing to follow what the cartoonist is presenting as in illogical pollicy.
geni
15th February 2006, 03:50 PM
Can you tell us in what way his art is technically inferior? In the same way the french impressionists are technically inferior to the guy that did the airbrush mural on your car?
Hmmmm, let's see... a quick search of the web found the following images, each one of them quite typical of the artist(s) in question:
French impressionists were allowed to produce stuff at a much lower rate than modern cartooists. Things like peanuts and garfield were/are fairly easy to draw.
While there have been some cartoonists who created very detailed works (Giles comes to mind) most do not.
Hmmmm, let's see... a quick search of the web found the following images, each one of them quite typical of the artist(s) in question:
French impressionists were allowed to produce stuff at a much lower rate than modern cartooists. Things like peanuts and garfield were/are fairly easy to draw.
While there have been some cartoonists who created very detailed works (Giles comes to mind) most do not.
BPSCG
15th February 2006, 03:57 PM
Doesn't work to well since it ignores the guy in the forground.
The guy looks the same in both parts of the drawing. In the second he is carrying a gun. It could therefor be read as compareing the jews going into the camps with the israeli's in the IDF haveing to follow what the cartoonist is presenting as in illogical pollicy.That's the irony I referred to in an earlier post; where the Jews were once the victims of monsters, they are now portrayed as themselves the monsters.
The guy looks the same in both parts of the drawing. In the second he is carrying a gun. It could therefor be read as compareing the jews going into the camps with the israeli's in the IDF haveing to follow what the cartoonist is presenting as in illogical pollicy.That's the irony I referred to in an earlier post; where the Jews were once the victims of monsters, they are now portrayed as themselves the monsters.
Mycroft
15th February 2006, 04:15 PM
Comparing group X to Nazis may be immature, irrelevent, satirical, or even possibly on point, but that doesn't make it hate speach against group X. Please, put that on a post-it note on your monitor.
So give me an example of comparing anyone or any group to Nazis that is clearly not hate speech?
So give me an example of comparing anyone or any group to Nazis that is clearly not hate speech?
Mycroft
15th February 2006, 04:27 PM
No, "War is Peace" is a quote from 1984.
Yes, it is. It was AUP who claimed it as a motto for the occupation.
What do you think Leunig is trying to say by using it here?
Merely because it's the first thing that crossed your mind, that does not make it the most logical conclusion...
It's a political cartoon. The point is supposed to be simple, absorbed in a moment, not requiring deep introspection.
Let's try this interpreation on for size. Let's say that the cartoon is meant to compare the prisons the Jews endured, to the prison they've built for themselves.
What do you believe supports this interpretation?
Yes, it is. It was AUP who claimed it as a motto for the occupation.
What do you think Leunig is trying to say by using it here?
Merely because it's the first thing that crossed your mind, that does not make it the most logical conclusion...
It's a political cartoon. The point is supposed to be simple, absorbed in a moment, not requiring deep introspection.
Let's try this interpreation on for size. Let's say that the cartoon is meant to compare the prisons the Jews endured, to the prison they've built for themselves.
What do you believe supports this interpretation?
geni
15th February 2006, 04:31 PM
That's the irony I referred to in an earlier post; where the Jews were once the victims of monsters, they are now portrayed as themselves the monsters.
Not in that cartoon. They look the same.
Not in that cartoon. They look the same.
BPSCG
15th February 2006, 04:53 PM
Not in that cartoon. They look the same.Look again. The Jew's polebag in the first panel has turned into a rifle in the second. No longer a victim of persecution, but the persecutor.
Kopji
15th February 2006, 06:15 PM
How is condemning this guy for one cartoon without any consideration of his over 30 years of work any different than what rioters have done to Denmark & Norway's 40 years of good business in the Mideast?
And a minor note of fact. This cartoon never made it to print, it was censored as being too offensive. It only exists on the Internet.
Australian cartoonist censored
Melbourne, Australia, May 8, 2002 - The number one Melbourne morning paper 'The Age' recently refused to print a drawing by its popular cartoonist Michael Leunig, because (according to its editor Michael Gawenda) it was 'inappropriate' and 'offensive to all readers.' Consequently the cartoon surfaced in the critical television program 'Mediawatch' (www.abc.net.au/mediawatch). The two-frame cartoon shows two parallel lies, namely the notorious concentration-camp slogan 'Work brings Freedom' (Arbeit macht frei) and 'War brings Peace.' Michael Leunig, denying that the cartoon is anti-semitic, said: 'I think Michael Gawenda just didn't get it. I think the drawing is sympathetic to all Jews who ever suffered but sympathy is not always expressed with sugar.' A survey found that 85% of the Australian population felt that the cartoon should have been published.
http://www.wittyworld.com/news/australian.news.html
Picasso:
http://www.framesandfinishes.com.au/prints_graphics/picasso.jpg
And a minor note of fact. This cartoon never made it to print, it was censored as being too offensive. It only exists on the Internet.
Australian cartoonist censored
Melbourne, Australia, May 8, 2002 - The number one Melbourne morning paper 'The Age' recently refused to print a drawing by its popular cartoonist Michael Leunig, because (according to its editor Michael Gawenda) it was 'inappropriate' and 'offensive to all readers.' Consequently the cartoon surfaced in the critical television program 'Mediawatch' (www.abc.net.au/mediawatch). The two-frame cartoon shows two parallel lies, namely the notorious concentration-camp slogan 'Work brings Freedom' (Arbeit macht frei) and 'War brings Peace.' Michael Leunig, denying that the cartoon is anti-semitic, said: 'I think Michael Gawenda just didn't get it. I think the drawing is sympathetic to all Jews who ever suffered but sympathy is not always expressed with sugar.' A survey found that 85% of the Australian population felt that the cartoon should have been published.
http://www.wittyworld.com/news/australian.news.html
Picasso:
http://www.framesandfinishes.com.au/prints_graphics/picasso.jpg
geni
15th February 2006, 06:26 PM
Look again. The Jew's polebag in the first panel has turned into a rifle in the second. No longer a victim of persecution, but the persecutor.
Not really He's sill outside walking in and his expression hasn't chnaged. Conscripts can often be described as victems.
Not really He's sill outside walking in and his expression hasn't chnaged. Conscripts can often be described as victems.
Bjorn
15th February 2006, 06:29 PM
If the cartoonist really believes Muhammad wears a bomb in his turban, then he is an ignorant ass.
If he doesn't believe it, then he is a hypocrite and an anti-muslim.
If he doesn't believe it, then he is a hypocrite and an anti-muslim.
The Fool
15th February 2006, 06:54 PM
Look again. The Jew's polebag in the first panel has turned into a rifle in the second. No longer a victim of persecution, but the persecutor.
Nope... if thats what you get from it maybe its a reflection of your attitudes rather than the aim of the artist. You appear to me to be over sensitive to (and are looking for) anything that can be interpreted as anti-semitism. Your misperception of this cartoon is being reinforced by others in this thread who have shown a pesistant agenda to demonise any criticism or adverse comment on Sharons policies in the occupied territories. You are told to look for anti-semitism so that is what you dutifully see....if that vision is dismantled, try another idea....there must be some anti-semitism in there somewhere because the guy drew a star of david on the little guy. He referred to the holocaust. He alludes to Israeli policy in the occupied territories....good God...it just has to contain some anti-semitism somewhere!
That little man character "everyman" that leunig uses is never a persecutor...for your reading of the drawing to bear any relationship to the artists intentions it would have to be the first and only example out of thousands of drawings where this character has been used in that way.... Basically your interpretation is yet another attempt in this thread to massage this drawing into a predetermined box...
Nope... if thats what you get from it maybe its a reflection of your attitudes rather than the aim of the artist. You appear to me to be over sensitive to (and are looking for) anything that can be interpreted as anti-semitism. Your misperception of this cartoon is being reinforced by others in this thread who have shown a pesistant agenda to demonise any criticism or adverse comment on Sharons policies in the occupied territories. You are told to look for anti-semitism so that is what you dutifully see....if that vision is dismantled, try another idea....there must be some anti-semitism in there somewhere because the guy drew a star of david on the little guy. He referred to the holocaust. He alludes to Israeli policy in the occupied territories....good God...it just has to contain some anti-semitism somewhere!
That little man character "everyman" that leunig uses is never a persecutor...for your reading of the drawing to bear any relationship to the artists intentions it would have to be the first and only example out of thousands of drawings where this character has been used in that way.... Basically your interpretation is yet another attempt in this thread to massage this drawing into a predetermined box...
Mycroft
15th February 2006, 07:26 PM
How is condemning this guy for one cartoon without any consideration of his over 30 years of work any different than what rioters have done to Denmark & Norway's 40 years of good business in the Mideast?
One is using your own power of free speech to speak up against other speech you find offensive or disagree with.
The other is using physical intimidation to silence those who disagree with you.
I trust you can figure out which is which.
One is using your own power of free speech to speak up against other speech you find offensive or disagree with.
The other is using physical intimidation to silence those who disagree with you.
I trust you can figure out which is which.
gtc
15th February 2006, 07:47 PM
Leunig is published by The Age newspaper in Melbourne
The Age's editor often republishes articles from the Guardian, including the article by Dilpazier Aslam (http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/07/sassy_suicide_b.html). Story on this by Tim Blair (http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/theyll_probably_promote_him/).
The editor of the Age is Andrew Jaspan. This (http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/expectations_exceeded/) is what he had to say after an Australian described his Iraqi kidnappers as 'a holes'
"I was, I have to say, shocked by Douglas Wood’s use of the a---hole word, if I can put it like that, which I just thought was coarse and very ill-thought through and I think demeans the man and is one of the reasons why people are slightly sceptical of his motives and everything else.
"The issue really is largely, speaking as I understand it, he was treated well there. He says he was fed every day, and as such to turn around and use that kind of language I think is just insensitive."
I am very familiar with Leunig's work and enjoy his whimsical cartoons. I have had his calendar (which comes free with the Sydney Morning Herald) for several years now. However, I find his political views extreme. He sees himself as oppossing war mongers and fascists and being a victim of those war mongers. I suspect he has spent so long looking for the humanity in people he sees as being victims of war mongers and fascists, that he has forgotten about their victims. Thus he is able to ask us to pray (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/20/1034561388440.html) for Osama Bin Laden and to view the founder of Hamas as merely an old man in a wheelchair (http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/01/10/cartoon_1101_gallery__470x332.jpg) and the victim of Sharon. He is also able to feel that Anzac day is obscene, bizarre and shameful (http://theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Lest-we-forget-the-ultimate-price-of-warfare/2005/04/22/1114152319721.html). He is so far anti-war-on-terror that he is now pro-terrorist.
Michael Gawenda (who is Jewish, by the by) has an article in today's Age (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-deafening-silence/2006/02/15/1139890803084.html)newspaper (Leunig's publisher) questioning Leunig's approach to the matter. I found this article to be very well argued and would recommend it.
This is in reply to Leunig's article from yesterday (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/amid-the-pain-god-puts-his-hand-on-my-shoulder/2006/02/14/1139890735061.html).
Quite frankly, Leunig comes across as somewhat 'touched' in his article, and I would like to see the evidence of death threats. He has a persecution complex and immediately blamed a 'pro war lobby' for submiting the cartoon. As it turned out, it was a comedian.
He also seems hypocritical in deploring the Mohammed cartoons while defending his clearly partisan cartoons and deploring the sacking (http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/Evans/main.asp) of the NZ cartoonist on free speech grounds.
Edited to correct typo and to add Leunig's comments on Anzac day.
The Age's editor often republishes articles from the Guardian, including the article by Dilpazier Aslam (http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/07/sassy_suicide_b.html). Story on this by Tim Blair (http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/theyll_probably_promote_him/).
The editor of the Age is Andrew Jaspan. This (http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/expectations_exceeded/) is what he had to say after an Australian described his Iraqi kidnappers as 'a holes'
"I was, I have to say, shocked by Douglas Wood’s use of the a---hole word, if I can put it like that, which I just thought was coarse and very ill-thought through and I think demeans the man and is one of the reasons why people are slightly sceptical of his motives and everything else.
"The issue really is largely, speaking as I understand it, he was treated well there. He says he was fed every day, and as such to turn around and use that kind of language I think is just insensitive."
I am very familiar with Leunig's work and enjoy his whimsical cartoons. I have had his calendar (which comes free with the Sydney Morning Herald) for several years now. However, I find his political views extreme. He sees himself as oppossing war mongers and fascists and being a victim of those war mongers. I suspect he has spent so long looking for the humanity in people he sees as being victims of war mongers and fascists, that he has forgotten about their victims. Thus he is able to ask us to pray (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/20/1034561388440.html) for Osama Bin Laden and to view the founder of Hamas as merely an old man in a wheelchair (http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/01/10/cartoon_1101_gallery__470x332.jpg) and the victim of Sharon. He is also able to feel that Anzac day is obscene, bizarre and shameful (http://theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Lest-we-forget-the-ultimate-price-of-warfare/2005/04/22/1114152319721.html). He is so far anti-war-on-terror that he is now pro-terrorist.
Michael Gawenda (who is Jewish, by the by) has an article in today's Age (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-deafening-silence/2006/02/15/1139890803084.html)newspaper (Leunig's publisher) questioning Leunig's approach to the matter. I found this article to be very well argued and would recommend it.
This is in reply to Leunig's article from yesterday (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/amid-the-pain-god-puts-his-hand-on-my-shoulder/2006/02/14/1139890735061.html).
Quite frankly, Leunig comes across as somewhat 'touched' in his article, and I would like to see the evidence of death threats. He has a persecution complex and immediately blamed a 'pro war lobby' for submiting the cartoon. As it turned out, it was a comedian.
He also seems hypocritical in deploring the Mohammed cartoons while defending his clearly partisan cartoons and deploring the sacking (http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/Evans/main.asp) of the NZ cartoonist on free speech grounds.
Edited to correct typo and to add Leunig's comments on Anzac day.
gtc
15th February 2006, 07:49 PM
Nope... if thats what you get from it maybe its a reflection of your attitudes rather than the aim of the artist. You appear to me to be over sensitive to (and are looking for) anything that can be interpreted as anti-semitism. Your misperception of this cartoon is being reinforced by others in this thread who have shown a pesistant agenda to demonise any criticism or adverse comment on Sharons policies in the occupied territories. You are told to look for anti-semitism so that is what you dutifully see....if that vision is dismantled, try another idea....there must be some anti-semitism in there somewhere because the guy drew a star of david on the little guy. He referred to the holocaust. He alludes to Israeli policy in the occupied territories....good God...it just has to contain some anti-semitism somewhere!
That little man character "everyman" that leunig uses is never a persecutor...for your reading of the drawing to bear any relationship to the artists intentions it would have to be the first and only example out of thousands of drawings where this character has been used in that way.... Basically your interpretation is yet another attempt in this thread to massage this drawing into a predetermined box...
I take your point about the everyman not being the persecutor, but I can not see any reference to Sharon. If anything he is referring to the whole state of Israel as being war mongers, given the flag.
That little man character "everyman" that leunig uses is never a persecutor...for your reading of the drawing to bear any relationship to the artists intentions it would have to be the first and only example out of thousands of drawings where this character has been used in that way.... Basically your interpretation is yet another attempt in this thread to massage this drawing into a predetermined box...
I take your point about the everyman not being the persecutor, but I can not see any reference to Sharon. If anything he is referring to the whole state of Israel as being war mongers, given the flag.
Mycroft
15th February 2006, 08:16 PM
That little man character "everyman" that leunig uses is never a persecutor...
I've seen a lot of his cartoons and it seems to me that it's not so much that an "everyman" character is used in every cartoon, but that every character he draws looks the same.
I've seen a lot of his cartoons and it seems to me that it's not so much that an "everyman" character is used in every cartoon, but that every character he draws looks the same.
The Fool
15th February 2006, 08:37 PM
I take your point about the everyman not being the persecutor, but I can not see any reference to Sharon. If anything he is referring to the whole state of Israel as being war mongers, given the flag.
from my link earlier in the thread..
"Certainly my cartoons had expressed deep disturbance about Ariel Sharon's strategies but in no forum had I ever expressed my views about Israel - the nation. I had, like many commentators and cartoonists, been strongly critical of particular policies and deeds done, which is well within the democratic, intellectual, artistic and media tradition and which is what I am paid to do.
My views about Israel are that I want Israel to survive and prosper as a secure, healthy and peaceful nation. Like many Israelis, I have had grave doubts about Sharon's approach, which I fear may have been ultimately damaging to the progress of Israel's healthy nationhood."
Much confusion arises from Israels decision to use the symbol commonly associated with Judaism as the symbol of Israel. This leads to the common association Israel=Judaism and further down that road is Israeli government policy = Judaism.
On a personal note I have a particular disgust towards politicians who want to wrap themselves in the cloak of theology, harp on peoples loyalty to Gods and hijack it into political support...Politician or priest...Politician or Rabbi..Politician or Monk...Take your pick but trying to wear both hats is more often than not just a con job.
from my link earlier in the thread..
"Certainly my cartoons had expressed deep disturbance about Ariel Sharon's strategies but in no forum had I ever expressed my views about Israel - the nation. I had, like many commentators and cartoonists, been strongly critical of particular policies and deeds done, which is well within the democratic, intellectual, artistic and media tradition and which is what I am paid to do.
My views about Israel are that I want Israel to survive and prosper as a secure, healthy and peaceful nation. Like many Israelis, I have had grave doubts about Sharon's approach, which I fear may have been ultimately damaging to the progress of Israel's healthy nationhood."
Much confusion arises from Israels decision to use the symbol commonly associated with Judaism as the symbol of Israel. This leads to the common association Israel=Judaism and further down that road is Israeli government policy = Judaism.
On a personal note I have a particular disgust towards politicians who want to wrap themselves in the cloak of theology, harp on peoples loyalty to Gods and hijack it into political support...Politician or priest...Politician or Rabbi..Politician or Monk...Take your pick but trying to wear both hats is more often than not just a con job.
The Fool
15th February 2006, 09:04 PM
Leunig is published by The Age newspaper in Melbourne
The Age's editor often republishes articles from the Guardian, including the article by Dilpazier Aslam (http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/07/sassy_suicide_b.html). Story on this by Tim Blair (http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/theyll_probably_promote_him/).
The editor of the Age is Andrew Jaspan. This (http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/expectations_exceeded/) is what he had to say after an Australian described his Iraqi kidnappers as 'a holes'
"I was, I have to say, shocked by Douglas Wood’s use of the a---hole word, if I can put it like that, which I just thought was coarse and very ill-thought through and I think demeans the man and is one of the reasons why people are slightly sceptical of his motives and everything else.
"The issue really is largely, speaking as I understand it, he was treated well there. He says he was fed every day, and as such to turn around and use that kind of language I think is just insensitive."
I am very familiar with Leunig's work and enjoy his whimsical cartoons. I have had his calendar (which comes free with the Sydney Morning Herald) for several years now. However, I find his political views extreme. He sees himself as oppossing war mongers and fascists and being a victim of those war mongers. I suspect he has spent so long looking for the humanity in people he sees as being victims of war mongers and fascists, that he has forgotten about their victims. Thus he is able to ask us to pray (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/20/1034561388440.html) for Osama Bin Laden and to view the founder of Hamas as merely an old man in a wheelchair (http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/01/10/cartoon_1101_gallery__470x332.jpg) and the victim of Sharon. He is also able to feel that Anzac day is obscene, bizarre and shameful (http://theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Lest-we-forget-the-ultimate-price-of-warfare/2005/04/22/1114152319721.html). He is so far anti-war-on-terror that he is now pro-terrorist.
Michael Gawenda (who is Jewish, by the by) has an article in today's Age (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-deafening-silence/2006/02/15/1139890803084.html)newspaper (Leunig's publisher) questioning Leunig's approach to the matter. I found this article to be very well argued and would recommend it.
This is in reply to Leunig's article from yesterday (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/amid-the-pain-god-puts-his-hand-on-my-shoulder/2006/02/14/1139890735061.html).
Quite frankly, Leunig comes across as somewhat 'touched' in his article, and I would like to see the evidence of death threats. He has a persecution complex and immediately blamed a 'pro war lobby' for submiting the cartoon. As it turned out, it was a comedian.
He also seems hypocritical in deploring the Mohammed cartoons while defending his clearly partisan cartoons and deploring the sacking (http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/Evans/main.asp) of the NZ cartoonist on free speech grounds.
Edited to correct typo and to add Leunig's comments on Anzac day.
yes,yes,yes and once again yes, leunig is a leftie a quite loonie leftie, his father was a communist party member in this country when that was a crime. He is rabidly opposed to those he sees as facists and warmongers....so he gets this line...
"He is so far anti-war-on-terror that he is now pro-terrorist."
sigh...... where have I heard that before?
Pray for osama? Hmmmmm, Bet I could get the Pope to do that. Bet I could get any Christian to do that. They believe thier Prophet recommended such things..does that make them pro-terrorist?
The Age's editor often republishes articles from the Guardian, including the article by Dilpazier Aslam (http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/07/sassy_suicide_b.html). Story on this by Tim Blair (http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/theyll_probably_promote_him/).
The editor of the Age is Andrew Jaspan. This (http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/expectations_exceeded/) is what he had to say after an Australian described his Iraqi kidnappers as 'a holes'
"I was, I have to say, shocked by Douglas Wood’s use of the a---hole word, if I can put it like that, which I just thought was coarse and very ill-thought through and I think demeans the man and is one of the reasons why people are slightly sceptical of his motives and everything else.
"The issue really is largely, speaking as I understand it, he was treated well there. He says he was fed every day, and as such to turn around and use that kind of language I think is just insensitive."
I am very familiar with Leunig's work and enjoy his whimsical cartoons. I have had his calendar (which comes free with the Sydney Morning Herald) for several years now. However, I find his political views extreme. He sees himself as oppossing war mongers and fascists and being a victim of those war mongers. I suspect he has spent so long looking for the humanity in people he sees as being victims of war mongers and fascists, that he has forgotten about their victims. Thus he is able to ask us to pray (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/20/1034561388440.html) for Osama Bin Laden and to view the founder of Hamas as merely an old man in a wheelchair (http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/01/10/cartoon_1101_gallery__470x332.jpg) and the victim of Sharon. He is also able to feel that Anzac day is obscene, bizarre and shameful (http://theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Lest-we-forget-the-ultimate-price-of-warfare/2005/04/22/1114152319721.html). He is so far anti-war-on-terror that he is now pro-terrorist.
Michael Gawenda (who is Jewish, by the by) has an article in today's Age (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-deafening-silence/2006/02/15/1139890803084.html)newspaper (Leunig's publisher) questioning Leunig's approach to the matter. I found this article to be very well argued and would recommend it.
This is in reply to Leunig's article from yesterday (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/amid-the-pain-god-puts-his-hand-on-my-shoulder/2006/02/14/1139890735061.html).
Quite frankly, Leunig comes across as somewhat 'touched' in his article, and I would like to see the evidence of death threats. He has a persecution complex and immediately blamed a 'pro war lobby' for submiting the cartoon. As it turned out, it was a comedian.
He also seems hypocritical in deploring the Mohammed cartoons while defending his clearly partisan cartoons and deploring the sacking (http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/Evans/main.asp) of the NZ cartoonist on free speech grounds.
Edited to correct typo and to add Leunig's comments on Anzac day.
yes,yes,yes and once again yes, leunig is a leftie a quite loonie leftie, his father was a communist party member in this country when that was a crime. He is rabidly opposed to those he sees as facists and warmongers....so he gets this line...
"He is so far anti-war-on-terror that he is now pro-terrorist."
sigh...... where have I heard that before?
Pray for osama? Hmmmmm, Bet I could get the Pope to do that. Bet I could get any Christian to do that. They believe thier Prophet recommended such things..does that make them pro-terrorist?
Mycroft
15th February 2006, 09:05 PM
Much confusion arises from Israels decision to use the symbol commonly associated with Judaism as the symbol of Israel. This leads to the common association Israel=Judaism and further down that road is Israeli government policy = Judaism.
Leunig seems confused also. In the first frame, it clearly represents "Jew" as it's in Germany during WWII, before Israel even existed. In the second frame, it's in the exact same location on the person, who's standing in the exact same spot in the exact same pose, so it's unclear if it represents "Jew" or "Israeli" or even if Leunig makes any such distinction himself.
Leunig seems confused also. In the first frame, it clearly represents "Jew" as it's in Germany during WWII, before Israel even existed. In the second frame, it's in the exact same location on the person, who's standing in the exact same spot in the exact same pose, so it's unclear if it represents "Jew" or "Israeli" or even if Leunig makes any such distinction himself.
ImaginalDisc
15th February 2006, 09:15 PM
Leunig seems confused also. In the first frame, it clearly represents "Jew" as it's in Germany during WWII, before Israel even existed. In the second frame, it's in the exact same location on the person, who's standing in the exact same spot in the exact same pose, so it's unclear if it represents "Jew" or "Israeli" or even if Leunig makes any such distinction himself.
Mycroft, it's a comparison, in a cartoon. Did you expect the little figure in the forground to be using a GPS, which we can read, just to be sure that they're in different places? It's a juxtaposition meant to draw attention to relevant similarities and differences. Details irrelevant to the point are ommited.
P.S. That infamous Mo cartoon depicted the prophet with a bomb in his tubran, but no body! Clearly, the cartoonist was confused, because the prophet also had a torso, with limbs even!
Mycroft, it's a comparison, in a cartoon. Did you expect the little figure in the forground to be using a GPS, which we can read, just to be sure that they're in different places? It's a juxtaposition meant to draw attention to relevant similarities and differences. Details irrelevant to the point are ommited.
P.S. That infamous Mo cartoon depicted the prophet with a bomb in his tubran, but no body! Clearly, the cartoonist was confused, because the prophet also had a torso, with limbs even!
gtc
15th February 2006, 09:18 PM
yes,yes,yes and once again yes, leunig is a leftie a quite loonie leftie, his father was a communist party member in this country when that was a crime. He is rabidly opposed to those he sees as facists and warmongers....so he gets this line...
"He is so far anti-war-on-terror that he is now pro-terrorist."
That is a complete misrepresentation of my reasoning and you know it.
My reasoning is clearly outlined in my post and has nothing to do with whether or not his father was a communist. Being rabidly opposed to fascists and warmongers does not make someone pro terrorist. Praying for Osama and attacking Sharon for shooting a missile at 'an old man in a wheelchair' while he is probably dying is vastly different and deserves the title pro terrorist. Quite frankly, your post says more about you than it does about my argument.
Furthermore, I was not aware that it was illegal to be a member of that party and I was of the opinion that the referendum to outlaw the communist party never passed. I would be interested to see a reference to that..
sigh...... where have I heard that before?
I don't know, you tell me.
"He is so far anti-war-on-terror that he is now pro-terrorist."
That is a complete misrepresentation of my reasoning and you know it.
My reasoning is clearly outlined in my post and has nothing to do with whether or not his father was a communist. Being rabidly opposed to fascists and warmongers does not make someone pro terrorist. Praying for Osama and attacking Sharon for shooting a missile at 'an old man in a wheelchair' while he is probably dying is vastly different and deserves the title pro terrorist. Quite frankly, your post says more about you than it does about my argument.
Furthermore, I was not aware that it was illegal to be a member of that party and I was of the opinion that the referendum to outlaw the communist party never passed. I would be interested to see a reference to that..
sigh...... where have I heard that before?
I don't know, you tell me.
Mycroft
15th February 2006, 09:27 PM
Mycroft, it's a comparison, in a cartoon. Did you expect the little figure in the forground to be using a GPS, which we can read, just to be sure that they're in different places? It's a juxtaposition meant to draw attention to relevant similarities and differences. Details irrelevant to the point are ommited.
It's meant to compare Israeli policy to Nazi Germany. That's what it does.
It's meant to compare Israeli policy to Nazi Germany. That's what it does.
The Fool
15th February 2006, 09:40 PM
That is a complete misrepresentation of my reasoning and you know it.
My reasoning is clearly outlined in my post and has nothing to do with whether or not his father was a communist. Being rabidly opposed to fascists and warmongers does not make someone pro terrorist. Praying for Osama and attacking Sharon for shooting a missile at 'an old man in a wheelchair' while he is probably dying is vastly different and deserves the title pro terrorist. Quite frankly, your post says more about you than it does about my argument.
If you think that Leunig is "pro terrorist" thats your business. As for your claim that I misrepresented your position....well, I didn't say that quote was your position. I commented on it because you provided it as a quote.
Furthermore, I was not aware that it was illegal to be a member of that party and I was of the opinion that the referendum to outlaw the communist party never passed. I would be interested to see a reference to that..
The communist party in australia was banned during the early years of WW2. You must be thinking of menzies attempts to ban it again in the early 50s
I don't know, you tell me.
I have heard it many times on this forum directed at people who criticize Bush or Sharon, once again I don't remember you doing it so I was not referring to you ......I am seriously not trying to chew your ear gtc I do apologise if I seemed cranky.....
My reasoning is clearly outlined in my post and has nothing to do with whether or not his father was a communist. Being rabidly opposed to fascists and warmongers does not make someone pro terrorist. Praying for Osama and attacking Sharon for shooting a missile at 'an old man in a wheelchair' while he is probably dying is vastly different and deserves the title pro terrorist. Quite frankly, your post says more about you than it does about my argument.
If you think that Leunig is "pro terrorist" thats your business. As for your claim that I misrepresented your position....well, I didn't say that quote was your position. I commented on it because you provided it as a quote.
Furthermore, I was not aware that it was illegal to be a member of that party and I was of the opinion that the referendum to outlaw the communist party never passed. I would be interested to see a reference to that..
The communist party in australia was banned during the early years of WW2. You must be thinking of menzies attempts to ban it again in the early 50s
I don't know, you tell me.
I have heard it many times on this forum directed at people who criticize Bush or Sharon, once again I don't remember you doing it so I was not referring to you ......I am seriously not trying to chew your ear gtc I do apologise if I seemed cranky.....
ImaginalDisc
15th February 2006, 09:43 PM
It's meant to compare Israeli policy to Nazi Germany. That's what it does.
I disagree. I think it's meant to compare the imposed prison of concentration camps to the self imposed prison of a military state.
I disagree. I think it's meant to compare the imposed prison of concentration camps to the self imposed prison of a military state.
gtc
15th February 2006, 09:44 PM
Leunig says his father was a member of the COA during the 1950s when it was illegal, in this interview in the Socialist Review (http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9242). It seems he has the timing or the illegality of the CPA mixed up.
I accept now that you weren't chewing me out specifically, but your post certainly gave me that impression.
Edited after reading TF explanation.
I accept now that you weren't chewing me out specifically, but your post certainly gave me that impression.
Edited after reading TF explanation.
gtc
15th February 2006, 09:58 PM
More of Leunig's work can be seen here (http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot.com/2006/01/leunig-picture-of-anti-semite.html) and here (http://www.geocities.com/fairfax_are_yellow/Denkoscale.gif).
Helen Darville was a Queenslander who dyed her hair blonde, claimed to be a Ukranian called Helen Demidenko and wrote a novelisation of her family's life during World War II. The book was quite insulting to Ukranians and Jews (who were basically responsible for everything they got in her book). She won several prizes before it was exposed but seemed to be suffering some kind of breakdown at the time. This might have been the reason for Leunigs sympathy, but coupled with his other cartoons, his support could also be seen as being support for her ideas.
Helen Darville was a Queenslander who dyed her hair blonde, claimed to be a Ukranian called Helen Demidenko and wrote a novelisation of her family's life during World War II. The book was quite insulting to Ukranians and Jews (who were basically responsible for everything they got in her book). She won several prizes before it was exposed but seemed to be suffering some kind of breakdown at the time. This might have been the reason for Leunigs sympathy, but coupled with his other cartoons, his support could also be seen as being support for her ideas.
The Fool
15th February 2006, 10:01 PM
Leunig says his father was a member of the COA during the 1950s when it was illegal, in this interview in the Socialist Review (http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9242). It seems he has the timing or the illegality of the CPA mixed up.
I accept now that you weren't chewing me out specifically, but your post certainly gave me that impression.
Edited after reading TF explanation.
yes, he's not correct about the Communist party being illegal in the 50's. It was banned in the early 40's when emergency powers allowed the government to simply do it by proclamation or something similar.
On reading my previous post again I agree that I'm a grumpy old wanker....my apolgies again.
I accept now that you weren't chewing me out specifically, but your post certainly gave me that impression.
Edited after reading TF explanation.
yes, he's not correct about the Communist party being illegal in the 50's. It was banned in the early 40's when emergency powers allowed the government to simply do it by proclamation or something similar.
On reading my previous post again I agree that I'm a grumpy old wanker....my apolgies again.
gtc
15th February 2006, 10:03 PM
Apology accepted.
Mycroft
15th February 2006, 10:23 PM
I disagree. I think it's meant to compare the imposed prison of concentration camps to the self imposed prison of a military state.
Well, then we must agree to disagree. To me the comparison jumps off the page and is impossible to miss. If you don't see it, all we can do is go around again.
Well, then we must agree to disagree. To me the comparison jumps off the page and is impossible to miss. If you don't see it, all we can do is go around again.
Kopji
15th February 2006, 10:28 PM
http://www.geocities.com/fairfax_are_yellow/Denkoscale.gif
This might have been the reason for Leunigs sympathy, but coupled with his other cartoons, his support could also be seen as being support for her ideas.
Sure the guy is out there in left field and is probably a dirty commie, but I just don't see the link to antisemtism. He doesn't seem to care if you a jew or an eskimo, it is the behavior he is objecting to.
On the other hand, his drawing style really gives me encouragement. Maybe I'll submit a cartoon. :rolleyes:
This might have been the reason for Leunigs sympathy, but coupled with his other cartoons, his support could also be seen as being support for her ideas.
Sure the guy is out there in left field and is probably a dirty commie, but I just don't see the link to antisemtism. He doesn't seem to care if you a jew or an eskimo, it is the behavior he is objecting to.
On the other hand, his drawing style really gives me encouragement. Maybe I'll submit a cartoon. :rolleyes:
Kopji
15th February 2006, 10:45 PM
They didn't say it had to be funny.
Skeptic
15th February 2006, 11:24 PM
I've seen a lot of his cartoons and it seems to me that it's not so much that an "everyman" character is used in every cartoon, but that every character he draws looks the same.
Don't tell anybody, but I suspect that one of the reasons Leunig draws the "little man" and "everyman" all the time is that he lacks the talent to draw likenesses of specific individuals such as politicians or generals. When he does, which is rarely, the result is rather pathetic, from the artistic point of view.
So instead of drawing the Australian PM or Ariel Sharon or Sheikh Yassin or G. W. Bush or whomever, he usually draws "everyman" thinking / talking / wondering about them... and then covers his inability to draw a likeness with a lot of pseudo-intellectual BS about how he "draws from the persepctive of the little man," etc., etc., etc.
Don't tell anybody, but I suspect that one of the reasons Leunig draws the "little man" and "everyman" all the time is that he lacks the talent to draw likenesses of specific individuals such as politicians or generals. When he does, which is rarely, the result is rather pathetic, from the artistic point of view.
So instead of drawing the Australian PM or Ariel Sharon or Sheikh Yassin or G. W. Bush or whomever, he usually draws "everyman" thinking / talking / wondering about them... and then covers his inability to draw a likeness with a lot of pseudo-intellectual BS about how he "draws from the persepctive of the little man," etc., etc., etc.
Skeptic
15th February 2006, 11:26 PM
I disagree. I think it's meant to compare the imposed prison of concentration camps to the self imposed prison of a military state.
Except for the fact that a). israel is not a military state, and b). if it is in a "prison", it's not "self-imposed", but imposed by the genocidal thugs that surround it, a fact conveniently left out of Leunig's "analysis".
Except for the fact that a). israel is not a military state, and b). if it is in a "prison", it's not "self-imposed", but imposed by the genocidal thugs that surround it, a fact conveniently left out of Leunig's "analysis".
Skeptic
15th February 2006, 11:31 PM
Jeepers skeppers, lucky the cubists don't realise they can't paint.... I'll have a word to them about getting the eyes and ears on the correct parts of the heads......idiots.
Cubism, you say?
Well, let's see... here's the work of one of the most important cubists of the 20th century, Kasimir Malevich:
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/mer/0174~Suprematism-Posters.jpg
And here's the work of one of those annoying, yawn-inducing, so not-with-the-times artists, Michelangelo:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/michelangelo/holy-family.jpg
Hmmmmm...........
Yes, art sure advanced a lot with cubism, wouldn't you say?
Incidentally, I keep wondering what chances Michelangelo would have had of getting a grant for is art nowadays from the various "progressive" art-funding beurocracies, such as (in the USA) the National Foundation for the Arts (IIRC).
They would be sure to like Michelangelo's "daring and transgressive" portrayal of all those naked people, but would probably eventually decide against funding him, since a). he is, after all, white, male, and christian, and b). his pictures seem to support the male-chauvinist view of the family and even draw God as a male, clearly an anti-feminist, regressive view of art.
What's that? He has drawing talent? Sure, but... what the hell does that have to do with giving him money? I mean, do you want boring good art, or do you want exciting transgressive boundary-changing socially important challenging art? Now, if we could only get him to draw obese single-parent lesbians of color, we'd have something there...
("Challenging art" = "I have no earthly idea what on earth this is a picture of, do you?")
Cubism, you say?
Well, let's see... here's the work of one of the most important cubists of the 20th century, Kasimir Malevich:
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/mer/0174~Suprematism-Posters.jpg
And here's the work of one of those annoying, yawn-inducing, so not-with-the-times artists, Michelangelo:
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/michelangelo/holy-family.jpg
Hmmmmm...........
Yes, art sure advanced a lot with cubism, wouldn't you say?
Incidentally, I keep wondering what chances Michelangelo would have had of getting a grant for is art nowadays from the various "progressive" art-funding beurocracies, such as (in the USA) the National Foundation for the Arts (IIRC).
They would be sure to like Michelangelo's "daring and transgressive" portrayal of all those naked people, but would probably eventually decide against funding him, since a). he is, after all, white, male, and christian, and b). his pictures seem to support the male-chauvinist view of the family and even draw God as a male, clearly an anti-feminist, regressive view of art.
What's that? He has drawing talent? Sure, but... what the hell does that have to do with giving him money? I mean, do you want boring good art, or do you want exciting transgressive boundary-changing socially important challenging art? Now, if we could only get him to draw obese single-parent lesbians of color, we'd have something there...
("Challenging art" = "I have no earthly idea what on earth this is a picture of, do you?")
a_unique_person
15th February 2006, 11:51 PM
More of Leunig's work can be seen here (http://andrewlanderyou.blogspot.com/2006/01/leunig-picture-of-anti-semite.html) and here (http://www.geocities.com/fairfax_are_yellow/Denkoscale.gif).
Helen Darville was a Queenslander who dyed her hair blonde, claimed to be a Ukranian called Helen Demidenko and wrote a novelisation of her family's life during World War II. The book was quite insulting to Ukranians and Jews (who were basically responsible for everything they got in her book). She won several prizes before it was exposed but seemed to be suffering some kind of breakdown at the time. This might have been the reason for Leunigs sympathy, but coupled with his other cartoons, his support could also be seen as being support for her ideas.
The guy has drawn, over time, many thousands of cartoons. Cherry picking a select few does not make him an anti-semite. The Helen Demidenko farce was so ridiculous because the literary establishment gave her a prize, when the whole book was a fraud. That was what upset them so much.
Helen Darville was a Queenslander who dyed her hair blonde, claimed to be a Ukranian called Helen Demidenko and wrote a novelisation of her family's life during World War II. The book was quite insulting to Ukranians and Jews (who were basically responsible for everything they got in her book). She won several prizes before it was exposed but seemed to be suffering some kind of breakdown at the time. This might have been the reason for Leunigs sympathy, but coupled with his other cartoons, his support could also be seen as being support for her ideas.
The guy has drawn, over time, many thousands of cartoons. Cherry picking a select few does not make him an anti-semite. The Helen Demidenko farce was so ridiculous because the literary establishment gave her a prize, when the whole book was a fraud. That was what upset them so much.
Skeptic
15th February 2006, 11:52 PM
From the article gtc linked to, written by Leunig's ex-editor:
But there is nothing from Leunig on all this, not even a moment's reflection on the fact that the competition's organisers thought his cartoon - which is not a hoax - was a perfectly fine entry for this racist exercise.
Indeed, Leunig goes out of his way to praise the Iranians who were "courteously apologising, they had been co-operative. They cared."
Nothing on the competition and his shock that people could think he'd take part in something like this. Instead, there is his victimhood, the fact that people have been nasty to him, that "pro-war lobbyists" have made his life miserable and he has had "a gutful of hostility and hate mail all because I have resisted the rise of fascism - the idea of war".
Exactly so, Sir, exactly so.
But there is nothing from Leunig on all this, not even a moment's reflection on the fact that the competition's organisers thought his cartoon - which is not a hoax - was a perfectly fine entry for this racist exercise.
Indeed, Leunig goes out of his way to praise the Iranians who were "courteously apologising, they had been co-operative. They cared."
Nothing on the competition and his shock that people could think he'd take part in something like this. Instead, there is his victimhood, the fact that people have been nasty to him, that "pro-war lobbyists" have made his life miserable and he has had "a gutful of hostility and hate mail all because I have resisted the rise of fascism - the idea of war".
Exactly so, Sir, exactly so.
Skeptic
16th February 2006, 12:00 AM
The guy has drawn, over time, many thousands of cartoons. Cherry picking a select few does not make him an anti-semite.
This is the "David Irving" defense: when confronted with the numerous racist and antisemitic references in his own diaries (including the wonderful ditty, "I am a baby Aryan / not jewish or sectarian / I have no plans to marry / an ape or rastafarian"), he whined: "well, I wrote thousands of pages, why pick on some of them?"
Of course, by this "standard", Hitler wasn't an antisemite, either, since only a few percent of the total writing of Mein Kampf actually explicitly mentions jews.
The logic behind this "excuse" is the same as saying, "This guy has spoken, over time, many thousands of words. Cherry picking the few times he shouted "Death to the jews!" and "get the hell out of here, jewish pig-dog!" is unfair--that doesn't make him an antisemite!".
This is the "David Irving" defense: when confronted with the numerous racist and antisemitic references in his own diaries (including the wonderful ditty, "I am a baby Aryan / not jewish or sectarian / I have no plans to marry / an ape or rastafarian"), he whined: "well, I wrote thousands of pages, why pick on some of them?"
Of course, by this "standard", Hitler wasn't an antisemite, either, since only a few percent of the total writing of Mein Kampf actually explicitly mentions jews.
The logic behind this "excuse" is the same as saying, "This guy has spoken, over time, many thousands of words. Cherry picking the few times he shouted "Death to the jews!" and "get the hell out of here, jewish pig-dog!" is unfair--that doesn't make him an antisemite!".
Skeptic
16th February 2006, 12:01 AM
Look again. The Jew's polebag in the first panel has turned into a rifle in the second. No longer a victim of persecution, but the persecutor.
True, thought, with Leunig's usual lack of drawing talent, it's hard to tell...
True, thought, with Leunig's usual lack of drawing talent, it's hard to tell...
a_unique_person
16th February 2006, 12:14 AM
This is the "David Irving" defense: when confronted with the numerous racist and antisemitic references in his own diaries (including the wonderful ditty, "I am a baby Aryan / not jewish or sectarian / I have no plans to marry / an ape or rastafarian"), he whined: "well, I wrote thousands of pages, why pick on some of them?"
Of course, by this "standard", Hitler wasn't an antisemite, either, since only a few percent of the total writing of Mein Kampf actually explicitly mentions jews.
The logic behind this "excuse" is the same as saying, "This guy has spoken, over time, many thousands of words. Cherry picking the few times he shouted "Death to the jews!" and "get the hell out of here, jewish pig-dog!" is unfair--that doesn't make him an antisemite!".
BS. Irving never shuts up about it, it's all he thinks about. Just look at his web site. Look at leunigs body of work, it covers a lot of topics, his comments Jews/Israel/etc would be about .01%. As to claiming he shouts "Death to the Jews", prove it. You have several claims to prove on this thread, none of them so far have you attempted other than to pick on his drawing style.
Of course, by this "standard", Hitler wasn't an antisemite, either, since only a few percent of the total writing of Mein Kampf actually explicitly mentions jews.
The logic behind this "excuse" is the same as saying, "This guy has spoken, over time, many thousands of words. Cherry picking the few times he shouted "Death to the jews!" and "get the hell out of here, jewish pig-dog!" is unfair--that doesn't make him an antisemite!".
BS. Irving never shuts up about it, it's all he thinks about. Just look at his web site. Look at leunigs body of work, it covers a lot of topics, his comments Jews/Israel/etc would be about .01%. As to claiming he shouts "Death to the Jews", prove it. You have several claims to prove on this thread, none of them so far have you attempted other than to pick on his drawing style.
Skeptic
16th February 2006, 12:21 AM
BS. Irving never shuts up about it, it's all he thinks about. Just look at his web site. Look at leunigs body of work, it covers a lot of topics, his comments Jews/Israel/etc would be about .01%.
So you're not an antisemite unless you have no other interests?
Well, I think all black people should be sent back to Africa, but I also collect stamps and sing folk songs. The natural inferiority and violent tendencies of black people is not something I think about all the time--it's of little concern to me, really.
Therefore, I'm not a racist.
Cool.
So you're not an antisemite unless you have no other interests?
Well, I think all black people should be sent back to Africa, but I also collect stamps and sing folk songs. The natural inferiority and violent tendencies of black people is not something I think about all the time--it's of little concern to me, really.
Therefore, I'm not a racist.
Cool.
a_unique_person
16th February 2006, 12:25 AM
No, but if he was what you claim him to be, out there shouting "death to the Jews", I would expect a little more consistency from him. Unless he never has shouted out "Death to the Jews".
Skeptic
16th February 2006, 12:31 AM
No, but if he was what you claim him to be, out there shouting "death to the Jews", I would expect a little more consistency from him. Unless he never has shouted out "Death to the Jews".
(rolls eyes)
I didn't say he shouted "death to the jews", you bloody idiot.
I said that the logic of claiming he is not an antisemite because he only drew a few cartoons which are antisemitic out of thousands is the same logic as saying that someone isn't an antisemite because only a few of his words are "death to the jews".
Can you say, "analogy"?
I knew you could.
(rolls eyes)
I didn't say he shouted "death to the jews", you bloody idiot.
I said that the logic of claiming he is not an antisemite because he only drew a few cartoons which are antisemitic out of thousands is the same logic as saying that someone isn't an antisemite because only a few of his words are "death to the jews".
Can you say, "analogy"?
I knew you could.
CFLarsen
16th February 2006, 12:38 AM
They didn't say it had to be funny.
Well, funny in a sarcastic sense.
There has to be a relevant point, based on truth, for a caricature to work. If there isn't any, then it is merely propaganda.
Well, funny in a sarcastic sense.
There has to be a relevant point, based on truth, for a caricature to work. If there isn't any, then it is merely propaganda.
CFLarsen
16th February 2006, 12:48 AM
If the cartoonist really believes Muhammad wears a bomb in his turban, then he is an ignorant ass.
If he doesn't believe it, then he is a hypocrite and an anti-muslim.
Ah, I see you didn't get the point either.
The point is those radical Muslims who abuse Islam and Muhammed to bomb people.
If he doesn't believe it, then he is a hypocrite and an anti-muslim.
Ah, I see you didn't get the point either.
The point is those radical Muslims who abuse Islam and Muhammed to bomb people.
ImaginalDisc
16th February 2006, 06:35 AM
Well, then we must agree to disagree. To me the comparison jumps off the page and is impossible to miss. If you don't see it, all we can do is go around again.
Whereas my interpretation seems obvious to me. I could see it your way, if you were more persuasive.
Except for the fact that a). israel is not a military state, and b). if it is in a "prison", it's not "self-imposed", but imposed by the genocidal thugs that surround it, a fact conveniently left out of Leunig's "analysis".
A) A state which compells all people to, at the age of maturity, serve in the military is a state composed of conscripts and veterans. If Israel is not a military state, it is a reasonable facsimilie.B) Sharron's military policies were most definately a "War is Peace" program, and is, IMO, the target of this comparison, not Israel in general.
Whereas my interpretation seems obvious to me. I could see it your way, if you were more persuasive.
Except for the fact that a). israel is not a military state, and b). if it is in a "prison", it's not "self-imposed", but imposed by the genocidal thugs that surround it, a fact conveniently left out of Leunig's "analysis".
A) A state which compells all people to, at the age of maturity, serve in the military is a state composed of conscripts and veterans. If Israel is not a military state, it is a reasonable facsimilie.B) Sharron's military policies were most definately a "War is Peace" program, and is, IMO, the target of this comparison, not Israel in general.
Skeptic
16th February 2006, 07:15 AM
A) A state which compells all people to, at the age of maturity, serve in the military is a state composed of conscripts and veterans.
Nonsense. By this definition, any country which has a draft is a "military state"--including, for example, Switzerland.
Sharron's military policies were most definately a "War is Peace" program,
No, it's "self-defense".
and is, IMO, the target of this comparison, not Israel in general.
Neither Sharon nor his party nor his policies were so much as mentioned in this cartoon. It only mentions israel in general--and compares it, not even to Nazi Germany in general, but to the Auschwitz extermination camp in particular.
How a cartoon comparing israel to Auschwitz can be "a criticism of Sharon's policies" is beyond me.
Nonsense. By this definition, any country which has a draft is a "military state"--including, for example, Switzerland.
Sharron's military policies were most definately a "War is Peace" program,
No, it's "self-defense".
and is, IMO, the target of this comparison, not Israel in general.
Neither Sharon nor his party nor his policies were so much as mentioned in this cartoon. It only mentions israel in general--and compares it, not even to Nazi Germany in general, but to the Auschwitz extermination camp in particular.
How a cartoon comparing israel to Auschwitz can be "a criticism of Sharon's policies" is beyond me.
ImaginalDisc
16th February 2006, 07:21 AM
A) A state which compells all people to, at the age of maturity, serve in the military is a state composed of conscripts and veterans.
Nonsense. By this definition, any country which has a draft is a "military state"--including, for example, Switzerland.
Yes, that's a reasonable implication of my assertion. Skeptic, is it possible for you to disagree about a matter of opnion without dismissing the other person's view as non sense? Really, try to be polite. Strain yourself.
Sharron's military policies were most definately a "War is Peace" program,
No, it's "self-defense".
It is self defense, and it's also costly, in money and lives, and is beligerent. I won't dispute that self defense is warrentd in this situation, but I do disgaree with many Israeli policies, and the consequences thereof.
Neither Sharon nor his party nor his policies were so much as mentioned in this cartoon. It only mentions israel in general--and compares it, not even to Nazi Germany in general, but to the Auschwitz extermination camp in particular.
How a cartoon comparing israel to Auschwitz can be "a criticism of Sharon's policies" is beyond me.
Skeptic, it's a two panel cartoon, not a history text book. A great deal is left up to interpretation, that's why we're having this discussion in the first place. Art is by its nature open to interpretation. Art which has a simple, easy to understand message is called propaganda.
Nonsense. By this definition, any country which has a draft is a "military state"--including, for example, Switzerland.
Yes, that's a reasonable implication of my assertion. Skeptic, is it possible for you to disagree about a matter of opnion without dismissing the other person's view as non sense? Really, try to be polite. Strain yourself.
Sharron's military policies were most definately a "War is Peace" program,
No, it's "self-defense".
It is self defense, and it's also costly, in money and lives, and is beligerent. I won't dispute that self defense is warrentd in this situation, but I do disgaree with many Israeli policies, and the consequences thereof.
Neither Sharon nor his party nor his policies were so much as mentioned in this cartoon. It only mentions israel in general--and compares it, not even to Nazi Germany in general, but to the Auschwitz extermination camp in particular.
How a cartoon comparing israel to Auschwitz can be "a criticism of Sharon's policies" is beyond me.
Skeptic, it's a two panel cartoon, not a history text book. A great deal is left up to interpretation, that's why we're having this discussion in the first place. Art is by its nature open to interpretation. Art which has a simple, easy to understand message is called propaganda.
CFLarsen
16th February 2006, 07:33 AM
The larger, the more dangerous.
Therefore:
Being theathened with death by a lone nut is not the same is being threathened with death by the Ayatollah Humeini and his millions of supporters.
And yet, The Unabomber and McVeigh were each capable of killing people. So, how do we determine if someone is dangerous? When he has killed?
Which might be the reason that a death threat from a lone nut who represents nobody but himself is not news; it's an attempt from him to put on the "victim for speaking the truth" cloak, but like most of what he says, it's not convincing.
You don't find the Unabomber's threats convincing? McVeigh's?
Therefore:
Being theathened with death by a lone nut is not the same is being threathened with death by the Ayatollah Humeini and his millions of supporters.
And yet, The Unabomber and McVeigh were each capable of killing people. So, how do we determine if someone is dangerous? When he has killed?
Which might be the reason that a death threat from a lone nut who represents nobody but himself is not news; it's an attempt from him to put on the "victim for speaking the truth" cloak, but like most of what he says, it's not convincing.
You don't find the Unabomber's threats convincing? McVeigh's?
Mycroft
16th February 2006, 10:49 AM
Skeptic, it's a two panel cartoon, not a history text book. A great deal is left up to interpretation, that's why we're having this discussion in the first place. Art is by its nature open to interpretation. Art which has a simple, easy to understand message is called propaganda.
Art which has a simple, easy to understand political message is called a political cartoon. Michael Leunig is a political cartoonist.
You're right, though. The only difference between political cartoons and propaganda is that propaganda is produced by a government while political cartoons are produced by an individual and endorsed by whatever publications print it.
Art which has a simple, easy to understand political message is called a political cartoon. Michael Leunig is a political cartoonist.
You're right, though. The only difference between political cartoons and propaganda is that propaganda is produced by a government while political cartoons are produced by an individual and endorsed by whatever publications print it.
Mycroft
16th February 2006, 10:50 AM
The guy has drawn, over time, many thousands of cartoons. Cherry picking a select few does not make him an anti-semite. The Helen Demidenko farce was so ridiculous because the literary establishment gave her a prize, when the whole book was a fraud. That was what upset them so much.
So?
Even the most rabid bigot doesn't go aroud condemning the object of his hatred with every word. The test of being a bigot is what ideas you hold, not how often you express them.
So?
Even the most rabid bigot doesn't go aroud condemning the object of his hatred with every word. The test of being a bigot is what ideas you hold, not how often you express them.
Mycroft
16th February 2006, 10:52 AM
And yet, The Unabomber and McVeigh were each capable of killing people. So, how do we determine if someone is dangerous? When he has killed?
How about you? Do you recognize any difference between a thread from a disgruntled individual and a threat issues by a religious leader who influences tens or hundreds of thousands?
How about you? Do you recognize any difference between a thread from a disgruntled individual and a threat issues by a religious leader who influences tens or hundreds of thousands?
a_unique_person
16th February 2006, 12:09 PM
Mycroft, STFU, you are on ignore, and for a very good reason.
Ziggurat
16th February 2006, 12:36 PM
Mycroft, STFU, you are on ignore, and for a very good reason.
Sorry, but this has REALLY got me confused. Why would you bother to tell someone on ignore to shut up? Isn't the whole point of putting someone on ignore so that it no longer matters to you what they're saying?
Sorry, but this has REALLY got me confused. Why would you bother to tell someone on ignore to shut up? Isn't the whole point of putting someone on ignore so that it no longer matters to you what they're saying?
Lisa Simpson
16th February 2006, 03:19 PM
AUP--do not personalize the argument. Stick to the topic please.
RandFan
16th February 2006, 08:34 PM
Sorry, but this has REALLY got me confused. Why would you bother to tell someone on ignore to shut up? Isn't the whole point of putting someone on ignore so that it no longer matters to you what they're saying?Hmmm.....
Skeptic
16th February 2006, 09:02 PM
Hmmm.....
"I'm putting you on ignore!" is one of AUP's ways of "punishing" people.
I, too, was declared on ignore by AUP--which doesn't stop him from responding to my posts, of course.
It's some sort of moral punishment, I suppose.
"I'm putting you on ignore!" is one of AUP's ways of "punishing" people.
I, too, was declared on ignore by AUP--which doesn't stop him from responding to my posts, of course.
It's some sort of moral punishment, I suppose.
Kopji
16th February 2006, 09:03 PM
Well, funny in a sarcastic sense.
There has to be a relevant point, based on truth, for a caricature to work. If there isn't any, then it is merely propaganda.
Yeah. I think at least some of the problem from the fundy Muslim pov is that the culture pretty much uses this kind of art for propaganda. Still, it amazes me that they can't seem to escape their own mindset and understand there are other views out there. Sort of a willful blindness.
My point on redrawing Leunig's cartoon (sheesh, probably a cartoonist blasphemy) is that by moving a few bits around I can completely change the message and context. It is easy to make a mistake and draw something that sends a message you don't really intend. There can be a great power in political cartoons, but they are also easily mistaken or misused.
Leunig has a very childlike view of things, he is by nature going to miss the complexity of the world, and yet have something worth saying.
My favorite 'Mohammed' cartoon is this one:
http://www.cagle.com/news/BLOG/BLOGgifs/Muhammad%20060211/chappatte2.gif
Ink and art coming to life in rage and destruction is a powerful symbol. This is an artist's cartoon.
And to Mycrofts earlier comment, I do understand that the difference between 'them and us' is that we can discuss and argue without burning things down. It seems like a very large chasm sometimes...
Skeptic's point on the quality of drawing may be valid but is lost on me.
You draw because that's what you do, like breathing.
There has to be a relevant point, based on truth, for a caricature to work. If there isn't any, then it is merely propaganda.
Yeah. I think at least some of the problem from the fundy Muslim pov is that the culture pretty much uses this kind of art for propaganda. Still, it amazes me that they can't seem to escape their own mindset and understand there are other views out there. Sort of a willful blindness.
My point on redrawing Leunig's cartoon (sheesh, probably a cartoonist blasphemy) is that by moving a few bits around I can completely change the message and context. It is easy to make a mistake and draw something that sends a message you don't really intend. There can be a great power in political cartoons, but they are also easily mistaken or misused.
Leunig has a very childlike view of things, he is by nature going to miss the complexity of the world, and yet have something worth saying.
My favorite 'Mohammed' cartoon is this one:
http://www.cagle.com/news/BLOG/BLOGgifs/Muhammad%20060211/chappatte2.gif
Ink and art coming to life in rage and destruction is a powerful symbol. This is an artist's cartoon.
And to Mycrofts earlier comment, I do understand that the difference between 'them and us' is that we can discuss and argue without burning things down. It seems like a very large chasm sometimes...
Skeptic's point on the quality of drawing may be valid but is lost on me.
You draw because that's what you do, like breathing.
a_unique_person
16th February 2006, 09:14 PM
Sorry, but this has REALLY got me confused. Why would you bother to tell someone on ignore to shut up? Isn't the whole point of putting someone on ignore so that it no longer matters to you what they're saying?
It matters because it looks like I have no answer to him. The next 'issue' between us could see either or both of us banned. I had thought we had an agreement that 'we are done'. I am trying to keep to it, he is not.
It matters because it looks like I have no answer to him. The next 'issue' between us could see either or both of us banned. I had thought we had an agreement that 'we are done'. I am trying to keep to it, he is not.
Skeptic
16th February 2006, 09:18 PM
It matters because it looks like I have no answer to him.
Well, yes, that's one of the little downsides of declaring that you are "putting people on ignore", isn't it?
P.S.
As opposed to "Mycroft, STFU", which really is a well-thought-out, devastating answer.
Well, yes, that's one of the little downsides of declaring that you are "putting people on ignore", isn't it?
P.S.
As opposed to "Mycroft, STFU", which really is a well-thought-out, devastating answer.
The Fool
16th February 2006, 10:27 PM
Pay attention you slacker...while you are flapping about A_U_P the fire under leunig is starting to go out.....get back to your job.
Skeptic
17th February 2006, 12:29 AM
Pay attention you slacker...while you are flapping about A_U_P the fire under leunig is starting to go out.....get back to your job.
When TF, who is (formally) staunchly against "personal attacks" and "demonizations" and "ad hominems", starts hurling childish insults like this, you know you've won the debate against him.
I have to add this about Cubism, though. Here is Picasso, that genius of Cubism, in three pictures. The first two are from his "boring", pre-cubist "revolution" days. The first is a study, showing technical mastery that's quite comparable to Michelangelo or Rembrandt:
http://csdll.cs.tamu.edu:8080/picasso/ythumbs/1893/yopp93-01.jpg
And here--just to give an example of a work in oil--a deathbed scene as touching as anything one could find, executed with great mastery (look at the way Picasso paints the folds of the bedcovers, for instance):
http://csdll.cs.tamu.edu:8080/picasso/graphics/1897/opp97-01.jpg
Now, are you telling me that when a man who could paint and draw like that starts painting nonsense like this...
http://csdll.cs.tamu.edu:8080/picasso/ythumbs/1913/yopp13-272.jpg
...that that man considers this an artistic innovation? That that man considers himself to have improved and revolutionized art with such works?
No, I don't think so. I think it's a put-on: Picasso--a very cunning man--simply realized that the "sophisticated" art world cares far more about looking "sophisticated" and "revolutionary" and "avant-guarde" and "cutting edge" than it is interested in the actual artworks.
The most important thing in art, he discovered, is to draw badly and so create works that most people won't like. This--being disliked by the "philistines"--automatically makes every pointless scribble, every joke of a doodle, into a "great work of art" according to the art mavens.
Picasso himself, incidentally, continued to draw realistically until the end of his life. Tellingly, the protraits he made of his own family which hanged in his own homes were realistic. None of the two-eyes-on-one-side nonsense for him--which shows you how seriously he took his own "revolution".
Also, as if to show us all he's putting us on, every so often he'd stop his silly doodles of his later period and paint, seemingly effortlessly, stunning artwork such as this, for example, from 1939:
http://csdll.cs.tamu.edu:8080/picasso/graphics/1939/opp39-10.jpg
Cubism, like most modern art, is a joke--started knowingly as a joke by people who were great artists (like Picasso) but then swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the art establishment, and, alas, from then on taken seriously by hacks who couldn't draw like Picasso to save their lives.
When TF, who is (formally) staunchly against "personal attacks" and "demonizations" and "ad hominems", starts hurling childish insults like this, you know you've won the debate against him.
I have to add this about Cubism, though. Here is Picasso, that genius of Cubism, in three pictures. The first two are from his "boring", pre-cubist "revolution" days. The first is a study, showing technical mastery that's quite comparable to Michelangelo or Rembrandt:
http://csdll.cs.tamu.edu:8080/picasso/ythumbs/1893/yopp93-01.jpg
And here--just to give an example of a work in oil--a deathbed scene as touching as anything one could find, executed with great mastery (look at the way Picasso paints the folds of the bedcovers, for instance):
http://csdll.cs.tamu.edu:8080/picasso/graphics/1897/opp97-01.jpg
Now, are you telling me that when a man who could paint and draw like that starts painting nonsense like this...
http://csdll.cs.tamu.edu:8080/picasso/ythumbs/1913/yopp13-272.jpg
...that that man considers this an artistic innovation? That that man considers himself to have improved and revolutionized art with such works?
No, I don't think so. I think it's a put-on: Picasso--a very cunning man--simply realized that the "sophisticated" art world cares far more about looking "sophisticated" and "revolutionary" and "avant-guarde" and "cutting edge" than it is interested in the actual artworks.
The most important thing in art, he discovered, is to draw badly and so create works that most people won't like. This--being disliked by the "philistines"--automatically makes every pointless scribble, every joke of a doodle, into a "great work of art" according to the art mavens.
Picasso himself, incidentally, continued to draw realistically until the end of his life. Tellingly, the protraits he made of his own family which hanged in his own homes were realistic. None of the two-eyes-on-one-side nonsense for him--which shows you how seriously he took his own "revolution".
Also, as if to show us all he's putting us on, every so often he'd stop his silly doodles of his later period and paint, seemingly effortlessly, stunning artwork such as this, for example, from 1939:
http://csdll.cs.tamu.edu:8080/picasso/graphics/1939/opp39-10.jpg
Cubism, like most modern art, is a joke--started knowingly as a joke by people who were great artists (like Picasso) but then swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the art establishment, and, alas, from then on taken seriously by hacks who couldn't draw like Picasso to save their lives.
CFLarsen
17th February 2006, 01:02 AM
You know absolutely nothing about art history.
You do know your prejudices, though.
You do know your prejudices, though.
a_unique_person
17th February 2006, 01:20 AM
Which is ironic, for someone who never strays far from the topic of prejudice, he is totally enslaved by his own.
Skeptic
17th February 2006, 01:35 AM
You know absolutely nothing about art history.
You do know your prejudices, though.
Well, of course not. I have said something against the holy name of Picasso, which, naturally, automatically brands me as a philistine, doesn't it?
Sorry, Larsen; in fact I know quite a bit about art history, especially 20th century art history. It is simply that--with some important, and interesting, exceptions--the direction art history moved during the 20th century had been, generally speaking, downwards.
This is not to deny the genius of many individuals. Nor is it to claim that all non-realistic painting is worthless. Of course not; Pollock, for instance, could be amazing despite being completely abstract. Or Robert Mappletrope (sp?) whose photographs, while shocking and even obscene, showed immense talent of composition, form, and style. And there are numerous excellent realistic artists, too, who somehow manage to paint moving, amazing pictures without bothering whether they are "provocative" or "transgendered" or "taboo breaking" enough to gain the approval of the art critics.
But... just between you and me, just look at most of what passes, not only for art, but for great art of the 20th century. People like Warhol, Jones, De Kooning, and the rest of those charlatans. This is "art", Larsen?
Jasper Jones, for example, managed to be considered one of the top artists of his generation, for things like this:
http://content.barewalls.com/preview/k71381p.jpg
Why? Apparently, for copying the American flag correctly (The "Guardian" art critic, for instance, calls this joke a "provocative masterpice"). Or Andy Warhol, the pop-art phenomena--he drew, lke a genius, soup cans which he bought with his own genius hands in the local supermarket:
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/MCG/fpf1196_b.jpg
Brilliant art, don't you think? And how can we deny that this amazing work is a masterpiece:
http://www.the-artists.org/art-gallery/wdekooning/light-lar.jpg
Don't tell me "my five-year-old could draw better"--sure he could, but he isn't one of the greatest painters of the 20th century, Willem de Kooning, who painted the above crap, presumably when drunk, and called it "North Atlantic Light".
I suppose "North Atlantic" is due to the fact that there is a vaguely recognizable stick-figure of a boat in the middle of this mishmash, and "light" because there's a lot of white paint splotched on the canvas for no rhime or reason.
I say the king has no clothes. Most (not all) modern artists aren't real artists. They care nothing for composition, style, technical mastery, depth of feeling or introspection, or anything else that can count as "art".
They're performers: they care about shocking, annoying, or joking with the public. And to do that, you don't need talent; you only need to sucker the art critics by saying your nonsense "deals with the transformative hermenutics of the classist pre-revolutionary society" (or whatever), and Bob's your uncle!
You do know your prejudices, though.
Well, of course not. I have said something against the holy name of Picasso, which, naturally, automatically brands me as a philistine, doesn't it?
Sorry, Larsen; in fact I know quite a bit about art history, especially 20th century art history. It is simply that--with some important, and interesting, exceptions--the direction art history moved during the 20th century had been, generally speaking, downwards.
This is not to deny the genius of many individuals. Nor is it to claim that all non-realistic painting is worthless. Of course not; Pollock, for instance, could be amazing despite being completely abstract. Or Robert Mappletrope (sp?) whose photographs, while shocking and even obscene, showed immense talent of composition, form, and style. And there are numerous excellent realistic artists, too, who somehow manage to paint moving, amazing pictures without bothering whether they are "provocative" or "transgendered" or "taboo breaking" enough to gain the approval of the art critics.
But... just between you and me, just look at most of what passes, not only for art, but for great art of the 20th century. People like Warhol, Jones, De Kooning, and the rest of those charlatans. This is "art", Larsen?
Jasper Jones, for example, managed to be considered one of the top artists of his generation, for things like this:
http://content.barewalls.com/preview/k71381p.jpg
Why? Apparently, for copying the American flag correctly (The "Guardian" art critic, for instance, calls this joke a "provocative masterpice"). Or Andy Warhol, the pop-art phenomena--he drew, lke a genius, soup cans which he bought with his own genius hands in the local supermarket:
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/MCG/fpf1196_b.jpg
Brilliant art, don't you think? And how can we deny that this amazing work is a masterpiece:
http://www.the-artists.org/art-gallery/wdekooning/light-lar.jpg
Don't tell me "my five-year-old could draw better"--sure he could, but he isn't one of the greatest painters of the 20th century, Willem de Kooning, who painted the above crap, presumably when drunk, and called it "North Atlantic Light".
I suppose "North Atlantic" is due to the fact that there is a vaguely recognizable stick-figure of a boat in the middle of this mishmash, and "light" because there's a lot of white paint splotched on the canvas for no rhime or reason.
I say the king has no clothes. Most (not all) modern artists aren't real artists. They care nothing for composition, style, technical mastery, depth of feeling or introspection, or anything else that can count as "art".
They're performers: they care about shocking, annoying, or joking with the public. And to do that, you don't need talent; you only need to sucker the art critics by saying your nonsense "deals with the transformative hermenutics of the classist pre-revolutionary society" (or whatever), and Bob's your uncle!
CFLarsen
17th February 2006, 01:58 AM
Well, of course not. I have said something against the holy name of Picasso, which, naturally, automatically brands me as a philistine, doesn't it?
Not at all. I'm not particularly fond of Picasso, but I do recognize his immense talent.
Sorry, Larsen; in fact I know quite a bit about art history, especially 20th century art history. It is simply that--with some important, and interesting, exceptions--the direction art history moved during the 20th century had been, generally speaking, downwards.
This is not to deny the genius of many individuals. Nor is it to claim that all non-realistic painting is worthless. Of course not; Pollock, for instance, could be amazing despite being completely abstract. Or Robert Mappletrope (sp?) whose photographs, while shocking and even obscene, showed immense talent of composition, form, and style.
If you are so knowledgable about 20th century art, you would know how to spell "Mapplethorpe".
But... just between you and me, just look at most of what passes, not only for art, but for great art of the 20th century. People like Warhol, Jones, De Kooning, and the rest of those charlatans. This is "art", Larsen?
Very well. Between you and me, please list 10 artists from the 20th century whom you consider to be artists, and 10 whom you think not.
Then, explain why the first group makes art and why the second doesn't.
Note that I said "explain". I'm not interested in whether you like them or not.
Not at all. I'm not particularly fond of Picasso, but I do recognize his immense talent.
Sorry, Larsen; in fact I know quite a bit about art history, especially 20th century art history. It is simply that--with some important, and interesting, exceptions--the direction art history moved during the 20th century had been, generally speaking, downwards.
This is not to deny the genius of many individuals. Nor is it to claim that all non-realistic painting is worthless. Of course not; Pollock, for instance, could be amazing despite being completely abstract. Or Robert Mappletrope (sp?) whose photographs, while shocking and even obscene, showed immense talent of composition, form, and style.
If you are so knowledgable about 20th century art, you would know how to spell "Mapplethorpe".
But... just between you and me, just look at most of what passes, not only for art, but for great art of the 20th century. People like Warhol, Jones, De Kooning, and the rest of those charlatans. This is "art", Larsen?
Very well. Between you and me, please list 10 artists from the 20th century whom you consider to be artists, and 10 whom you think not.
Then, explain why the first group makes art and why the second doesn't.
Note that I said "explain". I'm not interested in whether you like them or not.
Skeptic
17th February 2006, 02:28 AM
Very well. Between you and me, please list 10 artists from the 20th century whom you consider to be artists, and 10 whom you think not.
Then, explain why the first group makes art and why the second doesn't.
Note that I said "explain". I'm not interested in whether you like them or not.
Wait, don't tell me: unless I rush around doing this "homework assignment" that you assigned me, I am "admitting" I don't "really" know anything about 20th century art, right?
Sorry, Larken--I think that my previous few posts gave quite a few examples, and explanations, as to exactly why and where 20th century art went wrong. If you can't figure it out, I hardly need to follow your orders just to make it easier for you to undestand, do I?
P.S.
Just between you and me, why don't you strip naked, cover yourself with chocolate sauce, and rush through the streets shouting "I am a 20th century art expert!". If you refuse to do this, you are admitting that you don't know anything about 20th century art.
Note that I said "naked". I'm not interested in whether you are cold or not as you run through the street.
Then, explain why the first group makes art and why the second doesn't.
Note that I said "explain". I'm not interested in whether you like them or not.
Wait, don't tell me: unless I rush around doing this "homework assignment" that you assigned me, I am "admitting" I don't "really" know anything about 20th century art, right?
Sorry, Larken--I think that my previous few posts gave quite a few examples, and explanations, as to exactly why and where 20th century art went wrong. If you can't figure it out, I hardly need to follow your orders just to make it easier for you to undestand, do I?
P.S.
Just between you and me, why don't you strip naked, cover yourself with chocolate sauce, and rush through the streets shouting "I am a 20th century art expert!". If you refuse to do this, you are admitting that you don't know anything about 20th century art.
Note that I said "naked". I'm not interested in whether you are cold or not as you run through the street.
CFLarsen
17th February 2006, 02:34 AM
Wait, don't tell me: unless I rush around doing this "homework assignment" that you assigned me, I am "admitting" I don't "really" know anything about 20th century art, right?
Sorry, Larken--I think that my previous few posts gave quite a few examples, and explanations, as to exactly why and where 20th century art went wrong. If you can't figure it out, I hardly need to follow your orders just to make it easier for you to undestand, do I?
P.S.
Just between you and me, why don't you strip naked, cover yourself with chocolate sauce, and rush through the streets shouting "I am a 20th century art expert!". If you refuse to do this, you are admitting that you don't know anything about 20th century art.
Note that I said "naked". I'm not interested in whether you are cold or not as you run through the street.
I'm sorry, but all you said was that you don't think it was art. You haven't explained why, which is why I wanted to see if you could, in a more structured way, explain it.
You can't. Instead, you resort to personal attacks. Where does this rage come from?
It's OK if you don't like certain artists. Just don't claim that you are the only one who can define what "art" is.
Sorry, Larken--I think that my previous few posts gave quite a few examples, and explanations, as to exactly why and where 20th century art went wrong. If you can't figure it out, I hardly need to follow your orders just to make it easier for you to undestand, do I?
P.S.
Just between you and me, why don't you strip naked, cover yourself with chocolate sauce, and rush through the streets shouting "I am a 20th century art expert!". If you refuse to do this, you are admitting that you don't know anything about 20th century art.
Note that I said "naked". I'm not interested in whether you are cold or not as you run through the street.
I'm sorry, but all you said was that you don't think it was art. You haven't explained why, which is why I wanted to see if you could, in a more structured way, explain it.
You can't. Instead, you resort to personal attacks. Where does this rage come from?
It's OK if you don't like certain artists. Just don't claim that you are the only one who can define what "art" is.
Skeptic
17th February 2006, 03:03 AM
I'm sorry, but all you said was that you don't think it was art. You haven't explained why, which is why I wanted to see if you could, in a more structured way, explain it.
I did explain why it's not art (or, rather, not good art), Larken. Read my posts again and see if you can find where.
The problem with your reply is that you obviously didn't read what I wrote with any attention, yet you presume to tell me what I "must" do in order to convince you.
I did explain why it's not art (or, rather, not good art), Larken. Read my posts again and see if you can find where.
The problem with your reply is that you obviously didn't read what I wrote with any attention, yet you presume to tell me what I "must" do in order to convince you.
The Fool
17th February 2006, 03:13 AM
I did <snip>....... Larken....<snip>
We had a famous troll on here for a while (Franko) who thought it was clever to needle people by deliberately getting thier name wrong. Is he the inspiration for your work?
We had a famous troll on here for a while (Franko) who thought it was clever to needle people by deliberately getting thier name wrong. Is he the inspiration for your work?
CFLarsen
17th February 2006, 04:46 AM
I did explain why it's not art (or, rather, not good art), Larken. Read my posts again and see if you can find where.
The problem with your reply is that you obviously didn't read what I wrote with any attention, yet you presume to tell me what I "must" do in order to convince you.
You are not convincing at all.
The problem with your reply is that you obviously didn't read what I wrote with any attention, yet you presume to tell me what I "must" do in order to convince you.
You are not convincing at all.
Kopji
17th February 2006, 05:39 AM
Anything of great value - creation, a new idea- carries its shadow zone with it. You have to accept it that way. Otherwise there is only the stagnation of inaction. But every action has an implicit share of negativity. There is no escaping it. Every positive value has its price in negative terms and you never see anything very great which is not, at the same time, horrible in some respect. The genius of Einstein leads to Hiroshima.
- Picasso
...
- Picasso
...
epepke
17th February 2006, 11:14 AM
This is such an obvious and blatant lie. There is not one thing in that picture to suggest “Likud” instead of Israeli. It certainly says “Jew” by showing the same figure entering the concentration camp who is later an IDF soldier.
I do have to point out, though, that the Israeli/Jew on the right has the same dreadful expression as the Jew on the left. He's not jumping up and down and grinning. On both sides, he's obviously not looking forward to it and would rather be doing something else. I don't think the Jew on the right signed up but was rather doing mandatory military service.
Also, that gate: does what's beyond it represent Israel, or is it a checkpoint?
So I see the subtext as "Jews: Screwed again!"
I do have to point out, though, that the Israeli/Jew on the right has the same dreadful expression as the Jew on the left. He's not jumping up and down and grinning. On both sides, he's obviously not looking forward to it and would rather be doing something else. I don't think the Jew on the right signed up but was rather doing mandatory military service.
Also, that gate: does what's beyond it represent Israel, or is it a checkpoint?
So I see the subtext as "Jews: Screwed again!"
Skeptic
17th February 2006, 12:59 PM
You are not convincing at all.
Gee, I guess I'll go and stand in the corner in shame, then.
If I haven't convinced you, then this is, naturally, absolute proof of me being wrong.
I mean,what other standard of evidence could there possibly be, except "convincing Mr. Larsen"?
Gee, I guess I'll go and stand in the corner in shame, then.
If I haven't convinced you, then this is, naturally, absolute proof of me being wrong.
I mean,what other standard of evidence could there possibly be, except "convincing Mr. Larsen"?
a_unique_person
17th February 2006, 01:34 PM
I do have to point out, though, that the Israeli/Jew on the right has the same dreadful expression as the Jew on the left. He's not jumping up and down and grinning. On both sides, he's obviously not looking forward to it and would rather be doing something else. I don't think the Jew on the right signed up but was rather doing mandatory military service.
Also, that gate: does what's beyond it represent Israel, or is it a checkpoint?
So I see the subtext as "Jews: Screwed again!"
Yes, that is what he claims. If it is a tasteful way to portray it or not, is up to the individual.
Also, that gate: does what's beyond it represent Israel, or is it a checkpoint?
So I see the subtext as "Jews: Screwed again!"
Yes, that is what he claims. If it is a tasteful way to portray it or not, is up to the individual.
Mycroft
17th February 2006, 04:06 PM
They didn't say it had to be funny.
It's hard to read, does the second sign say "Welcome to Israel"?
It's hard to read, does the second sign say "Welcome to Israel"?
Mycroft
17th February 2006, 04:12 PM
I do have to point out, though, that the Israeli/Jew on the right has the same dreadful expression as the Jew on the left. He's not jumping up and down and grinning. On both sides, he's obviously not looking forward to it and would rather be doing something else. I don't think the Jew on the right signed up but was rather doing mandatory military service.
Also, that gate: does what's beyond it represent Israel, or is it a checkpoint?
So I see the subtext as "Jews: Screwed again!"
That’s a different point of view that’s quite defensible and well worth discussing, unlike the unsupportable claim that it’s any sort of criticism of Sharon or his policies.
Also, that gate: does what's beyond it represent Israel, or is it a checkpoint?
So I see the subtext as "Jews: Screwed again!"
That’s a different point of view that’s quite defensible and well worth discussing, unlike the unsupportable claim that it’s any sort of criticism of Sharon or his policies.
Mycroft
17th February 2006, 04:18 PM
Very well. Between you and me, please list 10 artists from the 20th century whom you consider to be artists, and 10 whom you think not.
I think it's a poor method of argument to simply demand someone else define something subjective then beat them up because the subjective is not easily defined.
You did that earlier in this thread where you demanded that someone tell you when individuals are violent and when they are not.
I think it's a poor method of argument to simply demand someone else define something subjective then beat them up because the subjective is not easily defined.
You did that earlier in this thread where you demanded that someone tell you when individuals are violent and when they are not.
hodgy
17th February 2006, 04:45 PM
Well, of course not. I have said something against the holy name of Picasso, which, naturally, automatically brands me as a philistine, doesn't it?
Sorry, Larsen; in fact I know quite a bit about art history, especially 20th century art history. It is simply that--with some important, and interesting, exceptions--the direction art history moved during the 20th century had been, generally speaking, downwards.
This is not to deny the genius of many individuals. Nor is it to claim that all non-realistic painting is worthless. Of course not; Pollock, for instance, could be amazing despite being completely abstract. Or Robert Mappletrope (sp?) whose photographs, while shocking and even obscene, showed immense talent of composition, form, and style. And there are numerous excellent realistic artists, too, who somehow manage to paint moving, amazing pictures without bothering whether they are "provocative" or "transgendered" or "taboo breaking" enough to gain the approval of the art critics.
But... just between you and me, just look at most of what passes, not only for art, but for great art of the 20th century. People like Warhol, Jones, De Kooning, and the rest of those charlatans. This is "art", Larsen?
Jasper Jones, for example, managed to be considered one of the top artists of his generation, for things like this:
http://content.barewalls.com/preview/k71381p.jpg
Why? Apparently, for copying the American flag correctly (The "Guardian" art critic, for instance, calls this joke a "provocative masterpice"). Or Andy Warhol, the pop-art phenomena--he drew, lke a genius, soup cans which he bought with his own genius hands in the local supermarket:
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/MCG/fpf1196_b.jpg
Brilliant art, don't you think? And how can we deny that this amazing work is a masterpiece:
http://www.the-artists.org/art-gallery/wdekooning/light-lar.jpg
Don't tell me "my five-year-old could draw better"--sure he could, but he isn't one of the greatest painters of the 20th century, Willem de Kooning, who painted the above crap, presumably when drunk, and called it "North Atlantic Light".
I suppose "North Atlantic" is due to the fact that there is a vaguely recognizable stick-figure of a boat in the middle of this mishmash, and "light" because there's a lot of white paint splotched on the canvas for no rhime or reason.
I say the king has no clothes. Most (not all) modern artists aren't real artists. They care nothing for composition, style, technical mastery, depth of feeling or introspection, or anything else that can count as "art".
They're performers: they care about shocking, annoying, or joking with the public. And to do that, you don't need talent; you only need to sucker the art critics by saying your nonsense "deals with the transformative hermenutics of the classist pre-revolutionary society" (or whatever), and Bob's your uncle!
Good post - craftsmanship should be at the core of all 'art'. I also say the Emperor has no clothes.
Sorry, Larsen; in fact I know quite a bit about art history, especially 20th century art history. It is simply that--with some important, and interesting, exceptions--the direction art history moved during the 20th century had been, generally speaking, downwards.
This is not to deny the genius of many individuals. Nor is it to claim that all non-realistic painting is worthless. Of course not; Pollock, for instance, could be amazing despite being completely abstract. Or Robert Mappletrope (sp?) whose photographs, while shocking and even obscene, showed immense talent of composition, form, and style. And there are numerous excellent realistic artists, too, who somehow manage to paint moving, amazing pictures without bothering whether they are "provocative" or "transgendered" or "taboo breaking" enough to gain the approval of the art critics.
But... just between you and me, just look at most of what passes, not only for art, but for great art of the 20th century. People like Warhol, Jones, De Kooning, and the rest of those charlatans. This is "art", Larsen?
Jasper Jones, for example, managed to be considered one of the top artists of his generation, for things like this:
http://content.barewalls.com/preview/k71381p.jpg
Why? Apparently, for copying the American flag correctly (The "Guardian" art critic, for instance, calls this joke a "provocative masterpice"). Or Andy Warhol, the pop-art phenomena--he drew, lke a genius, soup cans which he bought with his own genius hands in the local supermarket:
http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/MCG/fpf1196_b.jpg
Brilliant art, don't you think? And how can we deny that this amazing work is a masterpiece:
http://www.the-artists.org/art-gallery/wdekooning/light-lar.jpg
Don't tell me "my five-year-old could draw better"--sure he could, but he isn't one of the greatest painters of the 20th century, Willem de Kooning, who painted the above crap, presumably when drunk, and called it "North Atlantic Light".
I suppose "North Atlantic" is due to the fact that there is a vaguely recognizable stick-figure of a boat in the middle of this mishmash, and "light" because there's a lot of white paint splotched on the canvas for no rhime or reason.
I say the king has no clothes. Most (not all) modern artists aren't real artists. They care nothing for composition, style, technical mastery, depth of feeling or introspection, or anything else that can count as "art".
They're performers: they care about shocking, annoying, or joking with the public. And to do that, you don't need talent; you only need to sucker the art critics by saying your nonsense "deals with the transformative hermenutics of the classist pre-revolutionary society" (or whatever), and Bob's your uncle!
Good post - craftsmanship should be at the core of all 'art'. I also say the Emperor has no clothes.
hodgy
17th February 2006, 04:55 PM
Try this for art - you can spend a week reading the story.
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bruegel/wedding.jpg
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bruegel/wedding.jpg
Elind
17th February 2006, 05:09 PM
Someone may try explaining leunig to you but i suspect it would go way over the top. Stick to looking at the pretty pictures rather than trying to figure any meanings.
Why don't you, since others can't figure out the meanings? Just a gentle suggestion to put your fool mouth where it should be.:mad:
Why don't you, since others can't figure out the meanings? Just a gentle suggestion to put your fool mouth where it should be.:mad:
Elind
17th February 2006, 05:12 PM
Sorry, but this has REALLY got me confused. Why would you bother to tell someone on ignore to shut up? Isn't the whole point of putting someone on ignore so that it no longer matters to you what they're saying?
I'm hoping that applies to me too, but if not it doesn't make much difference does it?
I'm hoping that applies to me too, but if not it doesn't make much difference does it?
Skeptic
17th February 2006, 11:39 PM
Try this for art - you can spend a week reading the story.
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bruegel/wedding.jpg
Oh, hush. This isn't REAL art.
Sure, that dead white male Bruegel knew how to paint a human figure or two, but what the hell does he think he's doing, promoting the anti-feminist opressive institution of the traditional family and painting "weddings"? Such anti-women propaganda has no place in our museums.
Try something SUPERIOR--no, not because the art is superior, but because the ARTIST s superior (in their own mind), in this case Barbara Krueger, for "dealing with issues of race, gender, and sexuality", as the Cornell web site says--and if you can't trust Ivy-league women-studies art critics, who can you trust?
http://www.artnet.com/artwork_images/424149003/143705.jpg
The really pathetic thing is that while Bruegel would probably look with justified contempt at the idea that his painting must deal with something "important" to be good art, his painting of the wedding, for instance, tells us more about "issues of gender and sexuality" without even trying than Kreuger could possibly do.
http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bruegel/wedding.jpg
Oh, hush. This isn't REAL art.
Sure, that dead white male Bruegel knew how to paint a human figure or two, but what the hell does he think he's doing, promoting the anti-feminist opressive institution of the traditional family and painting "weddings"? Such anti-women propaganda has no place in our museums.
Try something SUPERIOR--no, not because the art is superior, but because the ARTIST s superior (in their own mind), in this case Barbara Krueger, for "dealing with issues of race, gender, and sexuality", as the Cornell web site says--and if you can't trust Ivy-league women-studies art critics, who can you trust?
http://www.artnet.com/artwork_images/424149003/143705.jpg
The really pathetic thing is that while Bruegel would probably look with justified contempt at the idea that his painting must deal with something "important" to be good art, his painting of the wedding, for instance, tells us more about "issues of gender and sexuality" without even trying than Kreuger could possibly do.
Kiless
18th February 2006, 12:16 AM
I had never heard of the artist before or seen his work, (hey that happens sometimes). I spent a couple hours looking through his work and decided I like him. Maybe I will buy some of his books. :)
Most of his work is not very controversial. His point of view of the world could probably be echoed by Tolkien:
To say he is anti Israel or Jewish or only wants to piss as many people off as he can seems to miss his actual pov.
The character in the concentration camp cartoon is, as I mentioned earlier, an "everyman". He uses this character repeatedly in his work in various contexts, but the context is always as a bemused observer to events. This technique is inclusive - for just this moment he thinks of himself as Jewish and this is what he sees. There is never perfection in the technique, but it cannot be done by seeing all Jews as being alike, or being evil.
Some of his earlier controversial work centered on the babies in childcare creche issues (http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_1566.asp?s=1)and was even used in an exam given to my students. Link to the image here (http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/5963/leunigbaby4eh.jpg).
Most of his work is not very controversial. His point of view of the world could probably be echoed by Tolkien:
To say he is anti Israel or Jewish or only wants to piss as many people off as he can seems to miss his actual pov.
The character in the concentration camp cartoon is, as I mentioned earlier, an "everyman". He uses this character repeatedly in his work in various contexts, but the context is always as a bemused observer to events. This technique is inclusive - for just this moment he thinks of himself as Jewish and this is what he sees. There is never perfection in the technique, but it cannot be done by seeing all Jews as being alike, or being evil.
Some of his earlier controversial work centered on the babies in childcare creche issues (http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_1566.asp?s=1)and was even used in an exam given to my students. Link to the image here (http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/5963/leunigbaby4eh.jpg).
Kiless
18th February 2006, 12:20 AM
The guy has drawn, over time, many thousands of cartoons. Cherry picking a select few does not make him an anti-semite. The Helen Demidenko farce was so ridiculous because the literary establishment gave her a prize, when the whole book was a fraud. That was what upset them so much.
Yes, I linked to the debate on another thread with a cartoon of his. I'd agree that what interested him the most was the venom that associated journalists, literary critics, et al leapt into the fray over the 'witch dunking' of Darville.
Yes, I linked to the debate on another thread with a cartoon of his. I'd agree that what interested him the most was the venom that associated journalists, literary critics, et al leapt into the fray over the 'witch dunking' of Darville.
Kiless
18th February 2006, 12:22 AM
Leunig is published by The Age newspaper in Melbourne
The Age's editor often republishes articles from the Guardian, including the article by Dilpazier Aslam (http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/07/sassy_suicide_b.html). Story on this by Tim Blair (http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/theyll_probably_promote_him/).
The editor of the Age is Andrew Jaspan. This (http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/expectations_exceeded/) is what he had to say after an Australian described his Iraqi kidnappers as 'a holes'
"I was, I have to say, shocked by Douglas Wood’s use of the a---hole word, if I can put it like that, which I just thought was coarse and very ill-thought through and I think demeans the man and is one of the reasons why people are slightly sceptical of his motives and everything else.
"The issue really is largely, speaking as I understand it, he was treated well there. He says he was fed every day, and as such to turn around and use that kind of language I think is just insensitive."
I am very familiar with Leunig's work and enjoy his whimsical cartoons. I have had his calendar (which comes free with the Sydney Morning Herald) for several years now. However, I find his political views extreme. He sees himself as oppossing war mongers and fascists and being a victim of those war mongers. I suspect he has spent so long looking for the humanity in people he sees as being victims of war mongers and fascists, that he has forgotten about their victims. Thus he is able to ask us to pray (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/20/1034561388440.html) for Osama Bin Laden and to view the founder of Hamas as merely an old man in a wheelchair (http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/01/10/cartoon_1101_gallery__470x332.jpg) and the victim of Sharon. He is also able to feel that Anzac day is obscene, bizarre and shameful (http://theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Lest-we-forget-the-ultimate-price-of-warfare/2005/04/22/1114152319721.html). He is so far anti-war-on-terror that he is now pro-terrorist.
Michael Gawenda (who is Jewish, by the by) has an article in today's Age (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-deafening-silence/2006/02/15/1139890803084.html)newspaper (Leunig's publisher) questioning Leunig's approach to the matter. I found this article to be very well argued and would recommend it.
This is in reply to Leunig's article from yesterday (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/amid-the-pain-god-puts-his-hand-on-my-shoulder/2006/02/14/1139890735061.html).
Quite frankly, Leunig comes across as somewhat 'touched' in his article, and I would like to see the evidence of death threats. He has a persecution complex and immediately blamed a 'pro war lobby' for submiting the cartoon. As it turned out, it was a comedian.
He also seems hypocritical in deploring the Mohammed cartoons while defending his clearly partisan cartoons and deploring the sacking (http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/Evans/main.asp) of the NZ cartoonist on free speech grounds.
Edited to correct typo and to add Leunig's comments on Anzac day.
Thank you for the links.
The Age's editor often republishes articles from the Guardian, including the article by Dilpazier Aslam (http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2005/07/sassy_suicide_b.html). Story on this by Tim Blair (http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/theyll_probably_promote_him/).
The editor of the Age is Andrew Jaspan. This (http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/expectations_exceeded/) is what he had to say after an Australian described his Iraqi kidnappers as 'a holes'
"I was, I have to say, shocked by Douglas Wood’s use of the a---hole word, if I can put it like that, which I just thought was coarse and very ill-thought through and I think demeans the man and is one of the reasons why people are slightly sceptical of his motives and everything else.
"The issue really is largely, speaking as I understand it, he was treated well there. He says he was fed every day, and as such to turn around and use that kind of language I think is just insensitive."
I am very familiar with Leunig's work and enjoy his whimsical cartoons. I have had his calendar (which comes free with the Sydney Morning Herald) for several years now. However, I find his political views extreme. He sees himself as oppossing war mongers and fascists and being a victim of those war mongers. I suspect he has spent so long looking for the humanity in people he sees as being victims of war mongers and fascists, that he has forgotten about their victims. Thus he is able to ask us to pray (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/20/1034561388440.html) for Osama Bin Laden and to view the founder of Hamas as merely an old man in a wheelchair (http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/01/10/cartoon_1101_gallery__470x332.jpg) and the victim of Sharon. He is also able to feel that Anzac day is obscene, bizarre and shameful (http://theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Lest-we-forget-the-ultimate-price-of-warfare/2005/04/22/1114152319721.html). He is so far anti-war-on-terror that he is now pro-terrorist.
Michael Gawenda (who is Jewish, by the by) has an article in today's Age (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/a-deafening-silence/2006/02/15/1139890803084.html)newspaper (Leunig's publisher) questioning Leunig's approach to the matter. I found this article to be very well argued and would recommend it.
This is in reply to Leunig's article from yesterday (http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/amid-the-pain-god-puts-his-hand-on-my-shoulder/2006/02/14/1139890735061.html).
Quite frankly, Leunig comes across as somewhat 'touched' in his article, and I would like to see the evidence of death threats. He has a persecution complex and immediately blamed a 'pro war lobby' for submiting the cartoon. As it turned out, it was a comedian.
He also seems hypocritical in deploring the Mohammed cartoons while defending his clearly partisan cartoons and deploring the sacking (http://cagle.msnbc.com/news/Evans/main.asp) of the NZ cartoonist on free speech grounds.
Edited to correct typo and to add Leunig's comments on Anzac day.
Thank you for the links.
Skeptic
18th February 2006, 12:26 AM
Some of his earlier controversial work centered on the babies in childcare creche issues (http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_1566.asp?s=1)and was even used in an exam given to my students. Link to the image here (http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/5963/leunigbaby4eh.jpg).
Well, this seems to confirm my view of him: total lack of drawing talent (as the picture you showed clearly shows) together with a wordy, "amazing insight": mothers that abandon their children are doing wrong. I've seen better "insights" on Hallmark cards.
Well, this seems to confirm my view of him: total lack of drawing talent (as the picture you showed clearly shows) together with a wordy, "amazing insight": mothers that abandon their children are doing wrong. I've seen better "insights" on Hallmark cards.
CFLarsen
18th February 2006, 12:26 AM
I think it's a poor method of argument to simply demand someone else define something subjective then beat them up because the subjective is not easily defined.
You did that earlier in this thread where you demanded that someone tell you when individuals are violent and when they are not.
What's wrong with asking people to define what they mean?
You did that earlier in this thread where you demanded that someone tell you when individuals are violent and when they are not.
What's wrong with asking people to define what they mean?
CFLarsen
18th February 2006, 12:29 AM
Oh, hush. This isn't REAL art.
Sure, that dead white male Bruegel knew how to paint a human figure or two, but what the hell does he think he's doing, promoting the anti-feminist opressive institution of the traditional family and painting "weddings"? Such anti-women propaganda has no place in our museums.
Try something SUPERIOR--no, not because the art is superior, but because the ARTIST s superior (in their own mind), in this case Barbara Krueger, for "dealing with issues of race, gender, and sexuality", as the Cornell web site says--and if you can't trust Ivy-league women-studies art critics, who can you trust?
If you don't like it, don't look at it.
Sure, that dead white male Bruegel knew how to paint a human figure or two, but what the hell does he think he's doing, promoting the anti-feminist opressive institution of the traditional family and painting "weddings"? Such anti-women propaganda has no place in our museums.
Try something SUPERIOR--no, not because the art is superior, but because the ARTIST s superior (in their own mind), in this case Barbara Krueger, for "dealing with issues of race, gender, and sexuality", as the Cornell web site says--and if you can't trust Ivy-league women-studies art critics, who can you trust?
If you don't like it, don't look at it.
Skeptic
18th February 2006, 02:27 AM
If you don't like it, don't look at it.
If I don't like it, I make fun of it.
If I don't like it, I make fun of it.
Skeptic
18th February 2006, 02:43 AM
What's wrong with asking people to define what they mean?
In your case, the fact that it's dishonest sophistry.
You know very well that virtually no non-trivial term ("religion", "Islam", "art", "morning", "night", "censorship", "violence", etc.) has a clear-cut definition and an absolutely clear meaning. You use this trivial fact to "prove" that those who disagree with you are "dishonest" or "biased" or "don't know what they're talking about" or are making "unfair generalizations", when you know very well they do not.
Suppose someone said "the night is dark". First, you'll ask them to give ten examples of a time that counts as "night" and twenty of what counts as "day" before you condenscend to talk to them. Then you'll note that there are times, like during a solar eclipse or a thunderstorm, where the day is dark, and that there are times, like when artificial illumination is used, when the night is not dark. Then, you'll use those exceptions as all-important counterexamples which "prove" that those who say "the night is dark" either don't know what they're talking about, or are saying something clearly false, or, at least, are engaged in "unwarranted generalizations", no doubt due to their lack of skeptical thinking skills.
It all sounds very clever, but, in reality, you're just using the methods the sophists used over 2000 years ago to defend absurd propositions. As with the sophists, the best answer is not to start the debate at all: to speak one's mind plainly and ignore dishonest baits by you of the "but I just don't undestand" or ""can you clarify" sort.
Such questions are reasonable when one is talking about some abstruse point of metaphysics or a complicated mathematical or physics theory. They're patently dishonest rhetorical tricks when you pretend not to understand what simple statements in plain English--such as, "many famous 20th century artists have little technical proficiency or artistic talent"--mean.
In your case, the fact that it's dishonest sophistry.
You know very well that virtually no non-trivial term ("religion", "Islam", "art", "morning", "night", "censorship", "violence", etc.) has a clear-cut definition and an absolutely clear meaning. You use this trivial fact to "prove" that those who disagree with you are "dishonest" or "biased" or "don't know what they're talking about" or are making "unfair generalizations", when you know very well they do not.
Suppose someone said "the night is dark". First, you'll ask them to give ten examples of a time that counts as "night" and twenty of what counts as "day" before you condenscend to talk to them. Then you'll note that there are times, like during a solar eclipse or a thunderstorm, where the day is dark, and that there are times, like when artificial illumination is used, when the night is not dark. Then, you'll use those exceptions as all-important counterexamples which "prove" that those who say "the night is dark" either don't know what they're talking about, or are saying something clearly false, or, at least, are engaged in "unwarranted generalizations", no doubt due to their lack of skeptical thinking skills.
It all sounds very clever, but, in reality, you're just using the methods the sophists used over 2000 years ago to defend absurd propositions. As with the sophists, the best answer is not to start the debate at all: to speak one's mind plainly and ignore dishonest baits by you of the "but I just don't undestand" or ""can you clarify" sort.
Such questions are reasonable when one is talking about some abstruse point of metaphysics or a complicated mathematical or physics theory. They're patently dishonest rhetorical tricks when you pretend not to understand what simple statements in plain English--such as, "many famous 20th century artists have little technical proficiency or artistic talent"--mean.
Mycroft
18th February 2006, 10:50 AM
What's wrong with asking people to define what they mean?
Nothing, if there is actual confusion about what they mean.
However, if you’re using it as a tactic to obfuscate rather than clarify, it may be dishonest.
For example, you raised a comparison earlier between the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh and the Ayatollah Khomeini, who issued the Fatwa against Salmon Rushdie.
Are there points of comparison? Sure, all are deadly.
Are there important differences? Sure. The Ayatollah Khomeini, at the time, was the actual ruler of a nation of some 25 million people, and had religious influence over a far greater number. The Unabomber and McVeigh were lone kooks. While all are deadly, one was deadly on a far greater scale than the other two.
So the similarities are obvious, but so were the differences. What then was the point of bringing them up? Were you really unclear of the difference in scale of the danger? Or did you intend to indulge in a little sophistry by playing up the similar points while dismissing the differences?
And why did you dodge the question about if you recognize any difference between a threat from an individual and a threat from a head of state?
Nothing, if there is actual confusion about what they mean.
However, if you’re using it as a tactic to obfuscate rather than clarify, it may be dishonest.
For example, you raised a comparison earlier between the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh and the Ayatollah Khomeini, who issued the Fatwa against Salmon Rushdie.
Are there points of comparison? Sure, all are deadly.
Are there important differences? Sure. The Ayatollah Khomeini, at the time, was the actual ruler of a nation of some 25 million people, and had religious influence over a far greater number. The Unabomber and McVeigh were lone kooks. While all are deadly, one was deadly on a far greater scale than the other two.
So the similarities are obvious, but so were the differences. What then was the point of bringing them up? Were you really unclear of the difference in scale of the danger? Or did you intend to indulge in a little sophistry by playing up the similar points while dismissing the differences?
And why did you dodge the question about if you recognize any difference between a threat from an individual and a threat from a head of state?
CFLarsen
18th February 2006, 11:10 AM
If I don't like it, I make fun of it.
That's fine. But if you want to declare that something isn't art, you should be prepared to defend it with more than "I don't like it".
In your case, the fact that it's dishonest sophistry.
You know very well that virtually no non-trivial term ("religion", "Islam", "art", "morning", "night", "censorship", "violence", etc.) has a clear-cut definition and an absolutely clear meaning. You use this trivial fact to "prove" that those who disagree with you are "dishonest" or "biased" or "don't know what they're talking about" or are making "unfair generalizations", when you know very well they do not.
Suppose someone said "the night is dark". First, you'll ask them to give ten examples of a time that counts as "night" and twenty of what counts as "day" before you condenscend to talk to them. Then you'll note that there are times, like during a solar eclipse or a thunderstorm, where the day is dark, and that there are times, like when artificial illumination is used, when the night is not dark. Then, you'll use those exceptions as all-important counterexamples which "prove" that those who say "the night is dark" either don't know what they're talking about, or are saying something clearly false, or, at least, are engaged in "unwarranted generalizations", no doubt due to their lack of skeptical thinking skills.
It all sounds very clever, but, in reality, you're just using the methods the sophists used over 2000 years ago to defend absurd propositions. As with the sophists, the best answer is not to start the debate at all: to speak one's mind plainly and ignore dishonest baits by you of the "but I just don't undestand" or ""can you clarify" sort.
Such questions are reasonable when one is talking about some abstruse point of metaphysics or a complicated mathematical or physics theory. They're patently dishonest rhetorical tricks when you pretend not to understand what simple statements in plain English--such as, "many famous 20th century artists have little technical proficiency or artistic talent"--mean.
Without definition, we don't know what we are talking about.
No "sophistry". Fact.
That's fine. But if you want to declare that something isn't art, you should be prepared to defend it with more than "I don't like it".
In your case, the fact that it's dishonest sophistry.
You know very well that virtually no non-trivial term ("religion", "Islam", "art", "morning", "night", "censorship", "violence", etc.) has a clear-cut definition and an absolutely clear meaning. You use this trivial fact to "prove" that those who disagree with you are "dishonest" or "biased" or "don't know what they're talking about" or are making "unfair generalizations", when you know very well they do not.
Suppose someone said "the night is dark". First, you'll ask them to give ten examples of a time that counts as "night" and twenty of what counts as "day" before you condenscend to talk to them. Then you'll note that there are times, like during a solar eclipse or a thunderstorm, where the day is dark, and that there are times, like when artificial illumination is used, when the night is not dark. Then, you'll use those exceptions as all-important counterexamples which "prove" that those who say "the night is dark" either don't know what they're talking about, or are saying something clearly false, or, at least, are engaged in "unwarranted generalizations", no doubt due to their lack of skeptical thinking skills.
It all sounds very clever, but, in reality, you're just using the methods the sophists used over 2000 years ago to defend absurd propositions. As with the sophists, the best answer is not to start the debate at all: to speak one's mind plainly and ignore dishonest baits by you of the "but I just don't undestand" or ""can you clarify" sort.
Such questions are reasonable when one is talking about some abstruse point of metaphysics or a complicated mathematical or physics theory. They're patently dishonest rhetorical tricks when you pretend not to understand what simple statements in plain English--such as, "many famous 20th century artists have little technical proficiency or artistic talent"--mean.
Without definition, we don't know what we are talking about.
No "sophistry". Fact.
CFLarsen
18th February 2006, 11:12 AM
Nothing, if there is actual confusion about what they mean.
However, if you’re using it as a tactic to obfuscate rather than clarify, it may be dishonest.
For example, you raised a comparison earlier between the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh and the Ayatollah Khomeini, who issued the Fatwa against Salmon Rushdie.
Are there points of comparison? Sure, all are deadly.
Are there important differences? Sure. The Ayatollah Khomeini, at the time, was the actual ruler of a nation of some 25 million people, and had religious influence over a far greater number. The Unabomber and McVeigh were lone kooks. While all are deadly, one was deadly on a far greater scale than the other two.
So the similarities are obvious, but so were the differences. What then was the point of bringing them up? Were you really unclear of the difference in scale of the danger? Or did you intend to indulge in a little sophistry by playing up the similar points while dismissing the differences?
And why did you dodge the question about if you recognize any difference between a threat from an individual and a threat from a head of state?
My point was that a single person was seen as less dangerous as a larger group of people. I pointed out that it was a flawed claim.
The difference is follows from me pointing out that a single person can also be dangerous.
However, if you’re using it as a tactic to obfuscate rather than clarify, it may be dishonest.
For example, you raised a comparison earlier between the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh and the Ayatollah Khomeini, who issued the Fatwa against Salmon Rushdie.
Are there points of comparison? Sure, all are deadly.
Are there important differences? Sure. The Ayatollah Khomeini, at the time, was the actual ruler of a nation of some 25 million people, and had religious influence over a far greater number. The Unabomber and McVeigh were lone kooks. While all are deadly, one was deadly on a far greater scale than the other two.
So the similarities are obvious, but so were the differences. What then was the point of bringing them up? Were you really unclear of the difference in scale of the danger? Or did you intend to indulge in a little sophistry by playing up the similar points while dismissing the differences?
And why did you dodge the question about if you recognize any difference between a threat from an individual and a threat from a head of state?
My point was that a single person was seen as less dangerous as a larger group of people. I pointed out that it was a flawed claim.
The difference is follows from me pointing out that a single person can also be dangerous.
Mycroft
18th February 2006, 01:44 PM
My point was that a single person was seen as less dangerous as a larger group of people. I pointed out that it was a flawed claim.
It's not flawed at all. A man who's a leader of an entire nation plus a spiritual leader who influences millions more certainly has the greater resources to carry out a threat than does any lone individual. That you can look backwards in time and identify lone individuals who were successfully able to kill people at random doesn't change the threat assessment of someone looking forward in time.
Further, neither Tim McVeigh nor Ted Kaczynski (the Unibomber) are really comparable to someone who makes a death threat against a well known public figure, as neither of these people warned their victims.
All of which is merely a distraction from where the topic of death threats was introduced as some bizarre claim that a lone individual who makes a death threat to a public figure is somehow comparable to riots organized in multiple places across the globe and in some cases receiving governmental support. That claim was made in this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1445953#post1445953
The difference is follows from me pointing out that a single person can also be dangerous.
Lot’s of things may be dangerous, that doesn’t make them comparable or similar. Disease, stinging insects, guns, automobiles, or sporting events may all, under the right circumstances, prove fatal, but that doesn’t mean you can make a meaningful comparison between a bee and a football game.
It's not flawed at all. A man who's a leader of an entire nation plus a spiritual leader who influences millions more certainly has the greater resources to carry out a threat than does any lone individual. That you can look backwards in time and identify lone individuals who were successfully able to kill people at random doesn't change the threat assessment of someone looking forward in time.
Further, neither Tim McVeigh nor Ted Kaczynski (the Unibomber) are really comparable to someone who makes a death threat against a well known public figure, as neither of these people warned their victims.
All of which is merely a distraction from where the topic of death threats was introduced as some bizarre claim that a lone individual who makes a death threat to a public figure is somehow comparable to riots organized in multiple places across the globe and in some cases receiving governmental support. That claim was made in this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1445953#post1445953
The difference is follows from me pointing out that a single person can also be dangerous.
Lot’s of things may be dangerous, that doesn’t make them comparable or similar. Disease, stinging insects, guns, automobiles, or sporting events may all, under the right circumstances, prove fatal, but that doesn’t mean you can make a meaningful comparison between a bee and a football game.
Mycroft
18th February 2006, 01:47 PM
That's fine. But if you want to declare that something isn't art, you should be prepared to defend it with more than "I don't like it".
Which he did.
Nobody who read those posts has any doubt as to why Skeptic may not like certain types of art. You may still disagree with him, but no rational person could claim he only defended his view by saying, "I don't like it."
Which he did.
Nobody who read those posts has any doubt as to why Skeptic may not like certain types of art. You may still disagree with him, but no rational person could claim he only defended his view by saying, "I don't like it."
Skeptic
18th February 2006, 02:09 PM
Which he did.
Nobody who read those posts has any doubt as to why Skeptic may not like certain types of art. You may still disagree with him, but no rational person could claim he only defended his view by saying, "I don't like it."
You miss the point, Mycroft. In Larsen's world, his opinions are "facts", while other people's facts are "just their opinion".
Nobody who read those posts has any doubt as to why Skeptic may not like certain types of art. You may still disagree with him, but no rational person could claim he only defended his view by saying, "I don't like it."
You miss the point, Mycroft. In Larsen's world, his opinions are "facts", while other people's facts are "just their opinion".
Elind
18th February 2006, 04:10 PM
No evidence yet.
Give us a break please. You don't want evidence for anything, and wouldn't recognize it if presented. It's called (what you suffer from), bias to the extreme.
Give us a break please. You don't want evidence for anything, and wouldn't recognize it if presented. It's called (what you suffer from), bias to the extreme.
a_unique_person
18th February 2006, 06:40 PM
Give us a break please. You don't want evidence for anything, and wouldn't recognize it if presented. It's called (what you suffer from), bias to the extreme.
This is a 'skeptics' forum. It is supposed to be, in the end, evidence based. Skeptic has made yet another claim that he refuses to provide evidence for. He is more interested in if Leunig's work is 'art' or not. That's an excellent way to avoid his claim of substance, that Leunig has a body of work that is anti-semitic, and that he calls for things like "Death to all Jews".
Claiming that I suffer from 'bias to the extreme' is another issue, but nothing to do with Skeptic backing up his allegations.
This is a 'skeptics' forum. It is supposed to be, in the end, evidence based. Skeptic has made yet another claim that he refuses to provide evidence for. He is more interested in if Leunig's work is 'art' or not. That's an excellent way to avoid his claim of substance, that Leunig has a body of work that is anti-semitic, and that he calls for things like "Death to all Jews".
Claiming that I suffer from 'bias to the extreme' is another issue, but nothing to do with Skeptic backing up his allegations.
a_unique_person
18th February 2006, 07:47 PM
Give us a break please. You don't want evidence for anything, and wouldn't recognize it if presented. It's called (what you suffer from), bias to the extreme.
Since you insist on personalising this, what are my extreme biases?
Since you insist on personalising this, what are my extreme biases?
Skeptic
18th February 2006, 09:16 PM
This is a 'skeptics' forum. It is supposed to be, in the end, evidence based. Skeptic has made yet another claim that he refuses to provide evidence for.
I provided quite a bit of evidence for it--not only did I write a few lenghty posts illustrating my position, but they included, IIRC, six or seven different images to illustrate the difference between talented artists and talentless hacks like Leunig.
You just refuse to look or notice it, as you do with most evidence that disagrees with your views.
I provided quite a bit of evidence for it--not only did I write a few lenghty posts illustrating my position, but they included, IIRC, six or seven different images to illustrate the difference between talented artists and talentless hacks like Leunig.
You just refuse to look or notice it, as you do with most evidence that disagrees with your views.
ImaginalDisc
18th February 2006, 10:00 PM
I provided quite a bit of evidence for it--not only did I write a few lenghty posts illustrating my position, but they included, IIRC, six or seven different images to illustrate the difference between talented artists and talentless hacks like Leunig.
You just refuse to look or notice it, as you do with most evidence that disagrees with your views.
Skeptic, political cartoonists must churn out images on an almost daily basis. That's far too little time for a classical painting, which you are demanding.
You just refuse to look or notice it, as you do with most evidence that disagrees with your views.
Skeptic, political cartoonists must churn out images on an almost daily basis. That's far too little time for a classical painting, which you are demanding.
RandFan
18th February 2006, 10:03 PM
Skeptic, political cartoonists must churn out images on an almost daily basis. That's far too little time for a classical painting, which you are demanding.Sure, but someone with artistic talent can turn out a quality drawing in short order. In the end the images are crap. Is that important? I don't know but at the end of the day the guy isn't an artist.
ImaginalDisc
18th February 2006, 10:15 PM
Sure, but someone with artistic talent can turn out a quality drawing in short order. In the end the images are crap. Is that important? I don't know but at the end of the day the guy isn't an artist.
He's being paid to produce art on a regular basis. That makes him an artist.
He's being paid to produce art on a regular basis. That makes him an artist.
RandFan
18th February 2006, 10:20 PM
He's being paid to produce art on a regular basis. That makes him an artist. We'll, I'm not sure that is a logically valid argument. It seems to me that would make him a professional. In any event I'm willing to concede that he is an artist. Of what I'm not certain. The important point though, to be certain, he can't draw worth s**t.
Mycroft
18th February 2006, 10:36 PM
He's being paid to produce art on a regular basis. That makes him an artist.
Technically, that's true, but I think the issue under dispute is if he's a good artist or not.
After reviewing samples of his work, it seems to me he’s much more famous for his views than he is for his art. Even by cartoon standards, he’s not much.
Technically, that's true, but I think the issue under dispute is if he's a good artist or not.
After reviewing samples of his work, it seems to me he’s much more famous for his views than he is for his art. Even by cartoon standards, he’s not much.
CFLarsen
18th February 2006, 11:36 PM
Sure, but someone with artistic talent can turn out a quality drawing in short order. In the end the images are crap. Is that important? I don't know but at the end of the day the guy isn't an artist.
Ever seen Picasso draw?
Ever seen Picasso draw?
Skeptic
18th February 2006, 11:57 PM
Skeptic, political cartoonists must churn out images on an almost daily basis. That's far too little time for a classical painting, which you are demanding.
I'm NOT demanding classical painting. I'm demanding some minimal amount of drawing talent.
Cartoonists everywhere write on deadlines, yet some of them manage to "churn out", for example, things like this on a daily basis:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/archive/martinrowson/0,7371,337763,00.html
Or, to give a non-political example:
http://www.angelfire.com/wa/zzaran/calvin.html
I actually disagree with Rowson's views on just about everything, but can it be denied he has drawing talent? And so does Bill Watterson. Leunig doesn't.
Really, it's a simple--and rather obvious--point.
I'm NOT demanding classical painting. I'm demanding some minimal amount of drawing talent.
Cartoonists everywhere write on deadlines, yet some of them manage to "churn out", for example, things like this on a daily basis:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/cartoons/archive/martinrowson/0,7371,337763,00.html
Or, to give a non-political example:
http://www.angelfire.com/wa/zzaran/calvin.html
I actually disagree with Rowson's views on just about everything, but can it be denied he has drawing talent? And so does Bill Watterson. Leunig doesn't.
Really, it's a simple--and rather obvious--point.
Skeptic
19th February 2006, 12:06 AM
He's being paid to produce art on a regular basis. That makes him an artist.
That's a rather odd definition of "artist", which would include Leunig and would not include Van Gogh, for example.
The point--Like Nelson Goodman, a philosopher of (among other things) already noted--is that the question "what is art?" and "who is an artist?" is pointless; what matters is, "what is good art?" "who is a talented artist?". Leunig is an artist, you say? Fine. But he's a lousy, talentless artist who cannot draw to save his life.
Nowadays, it is true, such trivial technicalities do not stop anybody from being "an important artist" (as long as they have the "right" political opinions, of course and are willing to gratuitiously insult in order to be "controvertial"). But that's besides the point.
That's a rather odd definition of "artist", which would include Leunig and would not include Van Gogh, for example.
The point--Like Nelson Goodman, a philosopher of (among other things) already noted--is that the question "what is art?" and "who is an artist?" is pointless; what matters is, "what is good art?" "who is a talented artist?". Leunig is an artist, you say? Fine. But he's a lousy, talentless artist who cannot draw to save his life.
Nowadays, it is true, such trivial technicalities do not stop anybody from being "an important artist" (as long as they have the "right" political opinions, of course and are willing to gratuitiously insult in order to be "controvertial"). But that's besides the point.
CFLarsen
19th February 2006, 12:06 AM
I'm NOT demanding classical painting. I'm demanding some minimal amount of drawing talent.
So, art has to "look like something"?
So, art has to "look like something"?
Skeptic
19th February 2006, 12:18 AM
So, art has to "look like something"?
Not necessarily; it depends. But POLITICAL CARTOONS sure do have to.
Not necessarily; it depends. But POLITICAL CARTOONS sure do have to.
CFLarsen
19th February 2006, 12:20 AM
Not necessarily; it depends.
On what?
But POLITICAL CARTOONS sure do have to.
Which don't?
On what?
But POLITICAL CARTOONS sure do have to.
Which don't?
a_unique_person
19th February 2006, 03:04 AM
I provided quite a bit of evidence for it--not only did I write a few lenghty posts illustrating my position, but they included, IIRC, six or seven different images to illustrate the difference between talented artists and talentless hacks like Leunig.
You just refuse to look or notice it, as you do with most evidence that disagrees with your views.
You claimed
Well, one censorship problem solved: "The Age" will surely have no problem publishing the cartoons of the holocaust-denial-and-mocking, israel-demonizing, west-despising cartoon conference in Teheran; after all, they've been publishing similar stuff for years with Leunig's output.
One of the cartoons was withheld by "The Age", by it's then editor who is Jewish. (Although he is normally a left-of-centre person politically, and is quite skeptical of the Bush Administration, for example).
Now prove your claim. You apparently know The Age has been publishing this stuff for years. I want proof, not a pointless diversion into his artistic talents, which is quite a diversion from the actual point of the thread.
You just refuse to look or notice it, as you do with most evidence that disagrees with your views.
You claimed
Well, one censorship problem solved: "The Age" will surely have no problem publishing the cartoons of the holocaust-denial-and-mocking, israel-demonizing, west-despising cartoon conference in Teheran; after all, they've been publishing similar stuff for years with Leunig's output.
One of the cartoons was withheld by "The Age", by it's then editor who is Jewish. (Although he is normally a left-of-centre person politically, and is quite skeptical of the Bush Administration, for example).
Now prove your claim. You apparently know The Age has been publishing this stuff for years. I want proof, not a pointless diversion into his artistic talents, which is quite a diversion from the actual point of the thread.
ImaginalDisc
19th February 2006, 07:31 AM
That's a rather odd definition of "artist", which would include Leunig and would not include Van Gogh, for example.
The point--Like Nelson Goodman, a philosopher of (among other things) already noted--is that the question "what is art?" and "who is an artist?" is pointless; what matters is, "what is good art?" "who is a talented artist?". Leunig is an artist, you say? Fine. But he's a lousy, talentless artist who cannot draw to save his life.
Nowadays, it is true, such trivial technicalities do not stop anybody from being "an important artist" (as long as they have the "right" political opinions, of course and are willing to gratuitiously insult in order to be "controvertial"). But that's besides the point.
It is not an all inclusive definition, yes. However, considering you said this:In your case, the fact that it's dishonest sophistry.
You know very well that virtually no non-trivial term ("religion", "Islam", "art", "morning", "night", "censorship", "violence", etc.) has a clear-cut definition and an absolutely clear meaning. You use this trivial fact to "prove" that those who disagree with you are "dishonest" or "biased" or "don't know what they're talking about" or are making "unfair generalizations", when you know very well they do not.
Suppose someone said "the night is dark". First, you'll ask them to give ten examples of a time that counts as "night" and twenty of what counts as "day" before you condenscend to talk to them. Then you'll note that there are times, like during a solar eclipse or a thunderstorm, where the day is dark, and that there are times, like when artificial illumination is used, when the night is not dark. Then, you'll use those exceptions as all-important counterexamples which "prove" that those who say "the night is dark" either don't know what they're talking about, or are saying something clearly false, or, at least, are engaged in "unwarranted generalizations", no doubt due to their lack of skeptical thinking skills.
It all sounds very clever, but, in reality, you're just using the methods the sophists used over 2000 years ago to defend absurd propositions. As with the sophists, the best answer is not to start the debate at all: to speak one's mind plainly and ignore dishonest baits by you of the "but I just don't undestand" or ""can you clarify" sort.
Such questions are reasonable when one is talking about some abstruse point of metaphysics or a complicated mathematical or physics theory. They're patently dishonest rhetorical tricks when you pretend not to understand what simple statements in plain English--such as, "many famous 20th century artists have little technical proficiency or artistic talent"--mean.
I am surprised you'd quibble.
The point--Like Nelson Goodman, a philosopher of (among other things) already noted--is that the question "what is art?" and "who is an artist?" is pointless; what matters is, "what is good art?" "who is a talented artist?". Leunig is an artist, you say? Fine. But he's a lousy, talentless artist who cannot draw to save his life.
Nowadays, it is true, such trivial technicalities do not stop anybody from being "an important artist" (as long as they have the "right" political opinions, of course and are willing to gratuitiously insult in order to be "controvertial"). But that's besides the point.
It is not an all inclusive definition, yes. However, considering you said this:In your case, the fact that it's dishonest sophistry.
You know very well that virtually no non-trivial term ("religion", "Islam", "art", "morning", "night", "censorship", "violence", etc.) has a clear-cut definition and an absolutely clear meaning. You use this trivial fact to "prove" that those who disagree with you are "dishonest" or "biased" or "don't know what they're talking about" or are making "unfair generalizations", when you know very well they do not.
Suppose someone said "the night is dark". First, you'll ask them to give ten examples of a time that counts as "night" and twenty of what counts as "day" before you condenscend to talk to them. Then you'll note that there are times, like during a solar eclipse or a thunderstorm, where the day is dark, and that there are times, like when artificial illumination is used, when the night is not dark. Then, you'll use those exceptions as all-important counterexamples which "prove" that those who say "the night is dark" either don't know what they're talking about, or are saying something clearly false, or, at least, are engaged in "unwarranted generalizations", no doubt due to their lack of skeptical thinking skills.
It all sounds very clever, but, in reality, you're just using the methods the sophists used over 2000 years ago to defend absurd propositions. As with the sophists, the best answer is not to start the debate at all: to speak one's mind plainly and ignore dishonest baits by you of the "but I just don't undestand" or ""can you clarify" sort.
Such questions are reasonable when one is talking about some abstruse point of metaphysics or a complicated mathematical or physics theory. They're patently dishonest rhetorical tricks when you pretend not to understand what simple statements in plain English--such as, "many famous 20th century artists have little technical proficiency or artistic talent"--mean.
I am surprised you'd quibble.
RandFan
19th February 2006, 08:01 AM
Ever seen Picasso draw?Sorry Larsen,
I'm not going to get into an argument with you about art. I took art classes including an art appreciation class and I an not without understand of the principles, styles, history and standards of art. I'm perfectly happy to concede that aesthetics are subjective and that I'm not an expert to judge the Emperor in his fine new threads. I conceded that Leunig is an artist for they very fact of what he does. That others find value in his "art" is all that I need. However I reserve the right to make my own aesthetic judgments. In the end that is what art all about.
Leunig can't draw worth s**t.
I have a Picasso on my wall BTW.
http://www.posterunlimited.com/imagebase/ADL/jpgs/EA-EA090.jpg
I'm not going to get into an argument with you about art. I took art classes including an art appreciation class and I an not without understand of the principles, styles, history and standards of art. I'm perfectly happy to concede that aesthetics are subjective and that I'm not an expert to judge the Emperor in his fine new threads. I conceded that Leunig is an artist for they very fact of what he does. That others find value in his "art" is all that I need. However I reserve the right to make my own aesthetic judgments. In the end that is what art all about.
Leunig can't draw worth s**t.
I have a Picasso on my wall BTW.
http://www.posterunlimited.com/imagebase/ADL/jpgs/EA-EA090.jpg
ImaginalDisc
19th February 2006, 08:07 AM
Leunig can't draw worth s**t.
I'd be the first to agree that the quality isn't as high as many more classical styles of art, but cartoons have a characteristic style. Few cartoons stand alone as supreme works of art and also make explicit insightful political statements. Well, except maybe Ozy and Millie.
[IMG]http://www.ozyandmillie.net/2000/om20001229.gif/IMG]'
For some reason, I can't get the pic to work.
I'd be the first to agree that the quality isn't as high as many more classical styles of art, but cartoons have a characteristic style. Few cartoons stand alone as supreme works of art and also make explicit insightful political statements. Well, except maybe Ozy and Millie.
[IMG]http://www.ozyandmillie.net/2000/om20001229.gif/IMG]'
For some reason, I can't get the pic to work.
RandFan
19th February 2006, 08:11 AM
I'd be the first to agree that the quality isn't as high as many more classical styles of art, but cartoons have a characteristic style. Few cartoons stand alone as supreme works of art and also make explicit insightful political statements. Well, except maybe Ozy and Millie. Agreed, I'm not certain of the significance of the quality of the drawings. Hardly seems worthy of pages of debate.
Bjorn
19th February 2006, 09:32 AM
The point--Like Nelson Goodman, a philosopher of (among other things) already noted--is that the question "what is art?" and "who is an artist?" is pointless; what matters is, "what is good art?"That was his question, what was his answer?
Skeptic
19th February 2006, 12:03 PM
Few cartoons stand alone as supreme works of art and also make explicit insightful political statements.
The problem is that Leunig has no artistic talent, but, to compensate, he is a political ignoramous.
The problem is that Leunig has no artistic talent, but, to compensate, he is a political ignoramous.
Mycroft
19th February 2006, 01:37 PM
One of the cartoons was withheld by "The Age", by it's then editor who is Jewish.
Why is it relevent to tell us this editor was Jewish?
Why is it relevent to tell us this editor was Jewish?
luchog
19th February 2006, 03:16 PM
Sorry, Larsen; in fact I know quite a bit about art history, especially 20th century art history. It is simply that--with some important, and interesting, exceptions--the direction art history moved during the 20th century had been, generally speaking, downwards.
This is not to deny the genius of many individuals. Nor is it to claim that all non-realistic painting is worthless. Of course not; Pollock, for instance, could be amazing despite being completely abstract. Or Robert Mappletrope (sp?) whose photographs, while shocking and even obscene, showed immense talent of composition, form, and style. And there are numerous excellent realistic artists, too, who somehow manage to paint moving, amazing pictures without bothering whether they are "provocative" or "transgendered" or "taboo breaking" enough to gain the approval of the art critics.
This is one of the main reasons that I detached myself from the local art scene. I also know quite a bit about art, though primarily in photography, since that was my chosen medium; and spent years studying fine art (and one day, when I can afford it, i would love to go back and finish my degree).
The history of 20th century art has been one of controversy over content, style over substance, message over skilled use of the medium. "Vision statements" trump artistic skill and sensibility. I'm a big fan of Dada, but I recognize it for what it was, as well as the aftermath that ensued. It's interesting, challenging, and thought-provoking; but nowhere near the same league as Vermeer, Caravaggio, or Manet.
And, for the record, Mapplethorpe was a hack. His technical skill was roughly equivalent to any third- or fourth-year art student, and in many cases is severely flawed. The only thing that set him apart from them was his choice of subject. Had it not been for the controversy, he wouldn't have been anything more than yet another second-rate photographer with a gallery show. Seen enough of those to last me a lifetime.
This is not to deny the genius of many individuals. Nor is it to claim that all non-realistic painting is worthless. Of course not; Pollock, for instance, could be amazing despite being completely abstract. Or Robert Mappletrope (sp?) whose photographs, while shocking and even obscene, showed immense talent of composition, form, and style. And there are numerous excellent realistic artists, too, who somehow manage to paint moving, amazing pictures without bothering whether they are "provocative" or "transgendered" or "taboo breaking" enough to gain the approval of the art critics.
This is one of the main reasons that I detached myself from the local art scene. I also know quite a bit about art, though primarily in photography, since that was my chosen medium; and spent years studying fine art (and one day, when I can afford it, i would love to go back and finish my degree).
The history of 20th century art has been one of controversy over content, style over substance, message over skilled use of the medium. "Vision statements" trump artistic skill and sensibility. I'm a big fan of Dada, but I recognize it for what it was, as well as the aftermath that ensued. It's interesting, challenging, and thought-provoking; but nowhere near the same league as Vermeer, Caravaggio, or Manet.
And, for the record, Mapplethorpe was a hack. His technical skill was roughly equivalent to any third- or fourth-year art student, and in many cases is severely flawed. The only thing that set him apart from them was his choice of subject. Had it not been for the controversy, he wouldn't have been anything more than yet another second-rate photographer with a gallery show. Seen enough of those to last me a lifetime.
luchog
19th February 2006, 03:23 PM
Skeptic, political cartoonists must churn out images on an almost daily basis. That's far too little time for a classical painting, which you are demanding.
Compare and contrast Leunig and David Horsey (http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/horsey.asp) or Daryl Cagle (http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/cagle.asp). Then try and justify your previous statement.
Compare and contrast Leunig and David Horsey (http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/horsey.asp) or Daryl Cagle (http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/cagle.asp). Then try and justify your previous statement.
luchog
19th February 2006, 03:28 PM
I'd be the first to agree that the quality isn't as high as many more classical styles of art, but cartoons have a characteristic style. Few cartoons stand alone as supreme works of art and also make explicit insightful political statements. Well, except maybe Ozy and Millie.
[IMG]http://www.ozyandmillie.net/2000/om20001229.gif/IMG]'
For some reason, I can't get the pic to work.
Okay, as much as I disagree with you on other things, I have to give you considerable credit for liking Ozy and Millie. Not high art as far as comics/cartoons go; but strong technical skill, individual vision, and very good writing. And hilariously funny. Incidentally, I have a close friend who is a dead-on grown-up Millie.
[IMG]http://www.ozyandmillie.net/2000/om20001229.gif/IMG]'
For some reason, I can't get the pic to work.
Okay, as much as I disagree with you on other things, I have to give you considerable credit for liking Ozy and Millie. Not high art as far as comics/cartoons go; but strong technical skill, individual vision, and very good writing. And hilariously funny. Incidentally, I have a close friend who is a dead-on grown-up Millie.
a_unique_person
19th February 2006, 04:19 PM
Compare and contrast Leunig and David Horsey (http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/horsey.asp) or Daryl Cagle (http://cagle.msnbc.com/politicalcartoons/PCcartoons/cagle.asp). Then try and justify your previous statement.
It's just his style. When you look at the body of his work, it makes sense for him to use that style of drawing. Why it is an issue is amazing.
It's just his style. When you look at the body of his work, it makes sense for him to use that style of drawing. Why it is an issue is amazing.
Bjorn
19th February 2006, 04:52 PM
The problem is that Leunig has no artistic talent, but, to compensate, he is a political ignoramous.You posted that
Nelson Goodman, a philosopher of (among other things) already noted--is that the question "what is art?" and "who is an artist?" is pointless; what matters is, "what is good art?"
I'm really interested in the answer to his question "what is good art". Did he give any?
Nelson Goodman, a philosopher of (among other things) already noted--is that the question "what is art?" and "who is an artist?" is pointless; what matters is, "what is good art?"
I'm really interested in the answer to his question "what is good art". Did he give any?
Skeptic
19th February 2006, 09:27 PM
You posted that
Nelson Goodman, a philosopher of (among other things) already noted--is that the question "what is art?" and "who is an artist?" is pointless; what matters is, "what is good art?"
I'm really interested in the answer to his question "what is good art". Did he give any?
Alas, not really so far as I recall... IIRC his discussion was philosophical--about the CONCEPT of "art". He was looking for a definition of "art" that embraces all art--good and bad. He wanted to include both good and bad art so that he won't be lookning for a definition that will try to include as "art" only "works of genius" or some other non-definable property.
In other words, he admitted that "good art" is extremely hard to define philosophically or accurately. But he most definitely DID think that such a difference exists, philosophy or no; in fact, he ran an art gallery for a few years in the 30s!
Nelson Goodman, a philosopher of (among other things) already noted--is that the question "what is art?" and "who is an artist?" is pointless; what matters is, "what is good art?"
I'm really interested in the answer to his question "what is good art". Did he give any?
Alas, not really so far as I recall... IIRC his discussion was philosophical--about the CONCEPT of "art". He was looking for a definition of "art" that embraces all art--good and bad. He wanted to include both good and bad art so that he won't be lookning for a definition that will try to include as "art" only "works of genius" or some other non-definable property.
In other words, he admitted that "good art" is extremely hard to define philosophically or accurately. But he most definitely DID think that such a difference exists, philosophy or no; in fact, he ran an art gallery for a few years in the 30s!
Skeptic
19th February 2006, 09:35 PM
It's just his style.
In the same sense that drawing stick figures is a five-year-old's "style".
In the same sense that drawing stick figures is a five-year-old's "style".
Skeptic
19th February 2006, 09:39 PM
And, for the record, Mapplethorpe was a hack. His technical skill was roughly equivalent to any third- or fourth-year art student, and in many cases is severely flawed. The only thing that set him apart from them was his choice of subject. Had it not been for the controversy, he wouldn't have been anything more than yet another second-rate photographer with a gallery show. Seen enough of those to last me a lifetime.
I disagree with you here, but... our disagremeent can be discussed in terms of composition, light and shadow, and other artistic issues. No need to bring in his "transgressive messege" or the "courage" of the galleries that showed his "shocking photos" into the discussion at all. Now, THAT is BS.
I disagree with you here, but... our disagremeent can be discussed in terms of composition, light and shadow, and other artistic issues. No need to bring in his "transgressive messege" or the "courage" of the galleries that showed his "shocking photos" into the discussion at all. Now, THAT is BS.
Kopji
19th February 2006, 09:55 PM
The whole notion of Leunig being a good artist or not seems tangential to reason.
A minimalist artistic philosophy would suggest that he communicate his ideas with as little ink as possible. It is good to do this and requires considerable talent and craftsmanship. If our complaint is that he should use more ink, that's fine but its beside the point of the actual message isn't it?
GIVE US MORE INK! sounds a little out there as a complaint.
Message received but not tastefully done. Okey dokey.
There are a couple questions we might ask.
1: Is Leunig acting rationally, or is he communicating an irrational message?
He has a childlike aversion to violence and feels a need to oppose that with his work. Even if we do not agree with what he says (and I'm not too sure I don't), drawing seems an entirely rational action on his part. It does not matter if he is good at it or not, that is a matter of taste.
2: Does his work undermine what he hopes to accomplish? This is more difficult to answer. If his view is that there is a kind of Utopian society out there somewhere he is working toward, then yes, his work is counterproductive. A more productive effort would be to focus on specific wrongs and work to illuminate them and work to right them.
But hey I could be wrong.
He may have a grand Utopian future view of the future that does not include Jews, but I just do not see it in his work.
He like ducks.
His cartoon attacks could easily be summed up as: "violent people will die a violent death". This is hardly a revolutionary (or new) idea, and does not make him anti-Semitic.
A minimalist artistic philosophy would suggest that he communicate his ideas with as little ink as possible. It is good to do this and requires considerable talent and craftsmanship. If our complaint is that he should use more ink, that's fine but its beside the point of the actual message isn't it?
GIVE US MORE INK! sounds a little out there as a complaint.
Message received but not tastefully done. Okey dokey.
There are a couple questions we might ask.
1: Is Leunig acting rationally, or is he communicating an irrational message?
He has a childlike aversion to violence and feels a need to oppose that with his work. Even if we do not agree with what he says (and I'm not too sure I don't), drawing seems an entirely rational action on his part. It does not matter if he is good at it or not, that is a matter of taste.
2: Does his work undermine what he hopes to accomplish? This is more difficult to answer. If his view is that there is a kind of Utopian society out there somewhere he is working toward, then yes, his work is counterproductive. A more productive effort would be to focus on specific wrongs and work to illuminate them and work to right them.
But hey I could be wrong.
He may have a grand Utopian future view of the future that does not include Jews, but I just do not see it in his work.
He like ducks.
His cartoon attacks could easily be summed up as: "violent people will die a violent death". This is hardly a revolutionary (or new) idea, and does not make him anti-Semitic.
Skeptic
19th February 2006, 10:20 PM
A minimalist artistic philosophy would suggest that he communicate his ideas with as little ink as possible. It is good to do this and requires considerable talent and craftsmanship. If our complaint is that he should use more ink, that's fine but its beside the point of the actual message isn't it?
You miss the point. The point is that while some minimalists show artistic talent, Leunig's "minimalism" doesn't. His "minimalism" is that of a stick figure--it does not capture any essential features of the person or object drawn, like (for instance) Picasso could with a single line.
He doesn't draw specific persons or places, or suggests them with a line or two, like a real minimalist does; he draws generic "man" or "house" or "city" stick-figure-level image. And, like a five-year-old writing "MOTTHER" above his stick figure, Leunig usually has to resort to written notes notes saying "Israel" or "parliament" or "Michael Howard the Prime Minister" or similar so the reader will have any idea what his "minimalist" stick figure represents this time.
You miss the point. The point is that while some minimalists show artistic talent, Leunig's "minimalism" doesn't. His "minimalism" is that of a stick figure--it does not capture any essential features of the person or object drawn, like (for instance) Picasso could with a single line.
He doesn't draw specific persons or places, or suggests them with a line or two, like a real minimalist does; he draws generic "man" or "house" or "city" stick-figure-level image. And, like a five-year-old writing "MOTTHER" above his stick figure, Leunig usually has to resort to written notes notes saying "Israel" or "parliament" or "Michael Howard the Prime Minister" or similar so the reader will have any idea what his "minimalist" stick figure represents this time.
Bjorn
19th February 2006, 10:44 PM
In other words, he admitted that "good art" is extremely hard to define philosophically or accurately. But he most definitely DID think that such a difference exists, philosophy or no; in fact, he ran an art gallery for a few years in the 30s!But he couldn't define it, nor could anyone else that I know of - maybe The Fool's signature, a quote by Pirsig, is as accurate as anything else written about it.
(By the way, many people ran or are running art galleries with 'art' you would consider not to be art, so that proves nothing.)
(By the way, many people ran or are running art galleries with 'art' you would consider not to be art, so that proves nothing.)
Skeptic
19th February 2006, 10:50 PM
But he couldn't define it, nor could anyone else that I know of - maybe The Fool's signature, a quote by Pirsig, is as accurate as anything else written about it.
(By the way, many people ran or are running art galleries with 'art' you would consider not to be art, so that proves nothing.)
Yes, but not him...
(By the way, many people ran or are running art galleries with 'art' you would consider not to be art, so that proves nothing.)
Yes, but not him...
Bjorn
19th February 2006, 11:16 PM
Yes, but not him...I agree with him, so he must be right? :)
Skeptic
19th February 2006, 11:33 PM
I agree with him, so he must be right? :)
I merely meant that he was not merely a philosopher looking at things abstractly, but actually had much experience with art.
The whole discussion in this thread is really between two camps. One side sees the artwork itself--whether it's tasteful, technically proficient, aesthetically pleasing, and so on--as they key. The other side in effect is saying, "but what does how his art look have to do with whether or not he's a good artist???"
Weird.
I merely meant that he was not merely a philosopher looking at things abstractly, but actually had much experience with art.
The whole discussion in this thread is really between two camps. One side sees the artwork itself--whether it's tasteful, technically proficient, aesthetically pleasing, and so on--as they key. The other side in effect is saying, "but what does how his art look have to do with whether or not he's a good artist???"
Weird.
luchog
20th February 2006, 10:42 AM
A minimalist artistic philosophy would suggest that he communicate his ideas with as little ink as possible. It is good to do this and requires considerable talent and craftsmanship. If our complaint is that he should use more ink, that's fine but its beside the point of the actual message isn't it?
The problem with Leunig is that he doesn't use a true minimalist style, by this definition. His figures do not suggest specifics, but only vague generalities; and he requires extensive labling and text -- "more ink" -- in order to make his point. And even then, he doesn't appear to communicate his ideas well at all, considering the wide range of interpretation given to some of his cartoons.
Political cartooning, in contrast to minimalist art, depends very heavily on clear and specific associations. Without that, the best it can manage to be is general satire or commentary at best, or vague polemic at worst. It's clear to me from this thread, that Leunig falls far more into the last camp than any of the others.
The problem with Leunig is that he doesn't use a true minimalist style, by this definition. His figures do not suggest specifics, but only vague generalities; and he requires extensive labling and text -- "more ink" -- in order to make his point. And even then, he doesn't appear to communicate his ideas well at all, considering the wide range of interpretation given to some of his cartoons.
Political cartooning, in contrast to minimalist art, depends very heavily on clear and specific associations. Without that, the best it can manage to be is general satire or commentary at best, or vague polemic at worst. It's clear to me from this thread, that Leunig falls far more into the last camp than any of the others.
luchog
20th February 2006, 10:48 AM
I disagree with you here, but... our disagremeent can be discussed in terms of composition, light and shadow, and other artistic issues. No need to bring in his "transgressive messege" or the "courage" of the galleries that showed his "shocking photos" into the discussion at all. Now, THAT is BS.
Yes, anytime any "statement" or critique involves the latter "messages", or comments on the "importance" of a work in any but a stylistic sense; AFAIAC, there is no point in bothering with it.
As for Mapplethorpe, I've seen better work, better composition and lighting, balance and flow, from students. It's somewhat telling that he had a rather large body of work that went relatively unnoticed until he created his more controversial work, and clashed with the various self-appointed defenders of decency, religious and secular.
Yes, anytime any "statement" or critique involves the latter "messages", or comments on the "importance" of a work in any but a stylistic sense; AFAIAC, there is no point in bothering with it.
As for Mapplethorpe, I've seen better work, better composition and lighting, balance and flow, from students. It's somewhat telling that he had a rather large body of work that went relatively unnoticed until he created his more controversial work, and clashed with the various self-appointed defenders of decency, religious and secular.
ImaginalDisc
20th February 2006, 10:49 AM
A minimalist artistic philosophy would suggest that he communicate his ideas with as little ink as possible. It is good to do this and requires considerable talent and craftsmanship. If our complaint is that he should use more ink, that's fine but its beside the point of the actual message isn't it?
You miss the point. The point is that while some minimalists show artistic talent, Leunig's "minimalism" doesn't. His "minimalism" is that of a stick figure--it does not capture any essential features of the person or object drawn, like (for instance) Picasso could with a single line.
No, you originaal point was that you thought he was an anti-semite. Haveing been unable to prove that, you instead have sunk to insulting the man's artistic abilities. You're merely searching for a way to justify your venom against him. I remind you that this is where you started from: I certainly believe that Leunig didn't send the cartoons to the contest himself. But the fact that cartoons he penned could be sent and accepted for the Iranian "let's make fun of the dirty jews' fake holocaust" contest, no matter who sent them, speaks volumes of what kind of drawings Leunig does--and about what kind of paper The Age is.
I only wonder which two cartoons were sent--there are so many of his cartoons that would be appropriate for that conference! Perhaps the one comparing israel, not only to nazi Germany, but to the Auschwitz extermination camp? Or maybe the one comparing Sharon to Yassin? Or the one depicting a US marine as a child-eating cannibal? Tough choice, with Leunig's prolific (if hate-filled and technically incompetent) output.
You miss the point. The point is that while some minimalists show artistic talent, Leunig's "minimalism" doesn't. His "minimalism" is that of a stick figure--it does not capture any essential features of the person or object drawn, like (for instance) Picasso could with a single line.
No, you originaal point was that you thought he was an anti-semite. Haveing been unable to prove that, you instead have sunk to insulting the man's artistic abilities. You're merely searching for a way to justify your venom against him. I remind you that this is where you started from: I certainly believe that Leunig didn't send the cartoons to the contest himself. But the fact that cartoons he penned could be sent and accepted for the Iranian "let's make fun of the dirty jews' fake holocaust" contest, no matter who sent them, speaks volumes of what kind of drawings Leunig does--and about what kind of paper The Age is.
I only wonder which two cartoons were sent--there are so many of his cartoons that would be appropriate for that conference! Perhaps the one comparing israel, not only to nazi Germany, but to the Auschwitz extermination camp? Or maybe the one comparing Sharon to Yassin? Or the one depicting a US marine as a child-eating cannibal? Tough choice, with Leunig's prolific (if hate-filled and technically incompetent) output.
gtc
20th February 2006, 02:06 PM
He like ducks.
Hitler was a vegetarian. Evil people can have stupid ideas too. :D
His cartoon attacks could easily be summed up as: "violent people will die a violent death". This is hardly a revolutionary (or new) idea, and does not make him anti-Semitic.
I find this hard to reconcile with his cartoon about the founder of Hamas.
Surely if Leunig honestly believed that violent people will die violent deaths, then he would have mentioned the fact that the old man in a wheelchair was a terrorist leader and the instigator of the mass murder of civillians? Instead Leunig doesn't even appear to think it at all relevant or even that the mass murder of civillians was a significant part of the leader's life.
To me, the cartoon suggests that Leunig is willing to ignore mass murder when it suits his anti-Sharon agenda. He has moved beyond even considering that the targetted killing of a mass murderer is morally equivalent to the mass murder or just likely to begat more violence.
Then I look at the other cartoon, which in the first panel shows a jew entering a concentration camp. The second panel shows the same jew and an Israeli flag. To me, this suggests that Leunig's agenda is broader than simply anti-Sharon. It certainly seems to be anti-Israeli, at the moment I reserve judgement about whether it is anti-semitic, although I have previously pointed out his defense of anti-semites.
I am also growing suspicious of trying to read too much into his cartoons. His style is so simplistic and the articles he writes seem so 'trippy'.
Hitler was a vegetarian. Evil people can have stupid ideas too. :D
His cartoon attacks could easily be summed up as: "violent people will die a violent death". This is hardly a revolutionary (or new) idea, and does not make him anti-Semitic.
I find this hard to reconcile with his cartoon about the founder of Hamas.
Surely if Leunig honestly believed that violent people will die violent deaths, then he would have mentioned the fact that the old man in a wheelchair was a terrorist leader and the instigator of the mass murder of civillians? Instead Leunig doesn't even appear to think it at all relevant or even that the mass murder of civillians was a significant part of the leader's life.
To me, the cartoon suggests that Leunig is willing to ignore mass murder when it suits his anti-Sharon agenda. He has moved beyond even considering that the targetted killing of a mass murderer is morally equivalent to the mass murder or just likely to begat more violence.
Then I look at the other cartoon, which in the first panel shows a jew entering a concentration camp. The second panel shows the same jew and an Israeli flag. To me, this suggests that Leunig's agenda is broader than simply anti-Sharon. It certainly seems to be anti-Israeli, at the moment I reserve judgement about whether it is anti-semitic, although I have previously pointed out his defense of anti-semites.
I am also growing suspicious of trying to read too much into his cartoons. His style is so simplistic and the articles he writes seem so 'trippy'.
Mycroft
20th February 2006, 05:54 PM
No, you originaal point was that you thought he was an anti-semite. Haveing been unable to prove that, you instead have sunk to insulting the man's artistic abilities. You're merely searching for a way to justify your venom against him. I remind you that this is where you started from:
No, he insulted his artistic abilities only after Kopji defended them as "minimalist."
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1446452#post1446452
No, he insulted his artistic abilities only after Kopji defended them as "minimalist."
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1446452#post1446452
Kopji
20th February 2006, 09:04 PM
Leunig's cute li'l guys make me want to put on old Monkee album or watch reruns of The Partridge Family. Maybe the real objection is that he is so... wholesome?
Not to get too off topic, but taking out the Hamas 'dangerous paraplegic leader in a wheelchair' with a gunship was a mistake. I know Israel is capable of more finesse.
Not to get too off topic, but taking out the Hamas 'dangerous paraplegic leader in a wheelchair' with a gunship was a mistake. I know Israel is capable of more finesse.
luchog
21st February 2006, 01:40 PM
Hitler was a vegetarian.
No, he wasn't.
No, he wasn't.
The Fool
21st February 2006, 01:49 PM
No, he wasn't.
I heard he was put on a vegetarian diet for a farting problem....but still ate meat.
I can see why he wanted to do something about it...last thing you want in a fuhrer is flatulance....
I heard he was put on a vegetarian diet for a farting problem....but still ate meat.
I can see why he wanted to do something about it...last thing you want in a fuhrer is flatulance....
No comments:
Post a Comment