I've never been a fan of beating a dead horse. When you think about it, though, it isn't going to feel any more pain, so most of my moral quandaries go out the window. Also, I haven't heard of a PETDA, so let the beating commence! For those of you not well-versed in idioms, I'm about to re-hash something that has been debated here and everywhere for the past eight months. The subject: cartoons.
Unless you've had your head in the sand ostrich-style, you've no doubt heard about the furor surrounding several editorial cartoons about the prophet Mohammad in Danish paper Jyllands-Posten. Apparently, all it took to set fire to a powder keg of ethnic and religious tensions were a couple of gangly cartoonists responding to a commission.
I should have prefaced this entire column by saying the following: I do not seek to offend here in any way, and I have tried to research my writing this week as best I can. If I am wrong, please let me know, and I will correct myself. I cannot make the claim that I am a certified expert in any field concerned here, from international relations to religion.
Yet I am a cartoonist. For lack of a better word, I have studied and drawn cartoons for the last six years (Shameless Plug: page two of the Daily, Tuesdays). While being a cartoonist does not necessarily entitle me to make general statements about the international scene, there are some interesting things I would like to shed light on that perhaps no one else has addressed. So let me begin now in earnest.
Cartoons are an interesting amalgam of media. As the old saying goes, "a picture is worth a thousand words." Cartoons are worth a thousand, plus whatever the cartoonist adds to it. Cartoons can be a lot easier to interpret than words - in fact, their medieval predecessors were a way to educate or inform the illiterate masses, when books or pamphlets would have failed.
This is why it's so important that we actually see the cartoons that were published - because the image is half the bargain. Chalk points up to the Primary Source; its stated motives or so-called hidden agenda notwithstanding, the conservative magazine has done an excellent job of showing us exactly what we are dealing with. Simply explaining a cartoon doesn't do justice to the idea that's being conveyed.
And what are we dealing with? The modern-day incarnation of the editorial cartoon should seek to be subtly provocative. A good editorial cartoon won't spell out its message either; it requires the reader to make some sort of intellectual leap and connect the dots. You will find that the easiest cartoons to understand are often the least funny. It's hard to walk that line: subtly implying something, but not being too obvious - I know because I try every week. It's hit or miss, but when it's a hit, the cartoon becomes more profound.
Walking that fine line is one thing when dealing with a political issue or something more mundane. When dealing with something more sensitive, like someone's interpretation of God, things immediately become complicated when you don't spell out your meaning.
One of the most virulently debated 'toons shows Mohammad with a bomb for a turban. We can walk through this cartoon several ways. Personally, I think the cartoonist is trying to convey in an image how many terrorists have used Mohammad as justification for suicide bombings. It's not so much of an accusation as it is a statement. This is a pointed address at what terrorists use as rationalization for their act, not a blanket statement about Muslims.
Of course, that's just me, and I can easily be wrong. At face value, the cartoon itself is a representation of the prophet - a form of idolatry, if you will. While the West seems to be down with the idea that God is a bearded dude with long white hair or, on occasion, Alanis Morissette, the Islamic community may not agree, and that is a belief to which they are entitled.
Secondly, many may decry the fact that the artist is trying to show Mohammad as a supporter or sponsor of terrorism. They, too, have a right to be outraged that their prophet is being portrayed like this.
So it's easy to see that with sensitive subject material, the subtleties of an editorial cartoon can be lost in a maelstrom of accusations. And all of our free-speech posturing aside, I also, frustratingly, have to hand it to Iran for its brilliant, albeit abominable move in commissioning Holocaust cartoons.
Had Jyllands-Posten published 12 Holocaust cartoons, it would be an entirely different demographic in uproar, as well as an entirely different demographic defending free speech.
In the end, it's an amazing and terrible time to be a cartoonist. On one hand, cartoons have been proven to be a viable vehicle for conveying an idea. On the other hand, these cartoons themselves are working for all the wrong reasons. We underestimated, rather stupidly, how that picture can be worth a thousand different words to every individual.
The net result: a culture clash. The West keeps reprinting the cartoons in an effort to valiantly preserve free speech, while forgetting that the images, while high-brow in humor, are still fundamentally offensive. Meanwhile, many Muslims will remain angry and won't make that leap and attempt to read the 'toons another way. When will either side stop posturing and start reconciling?
Who knows? The cartoon has done its job - it has exposed something simmering underneath the surface. And speaking as a cartoonist, I think there are more important and pressing matters on which we should be focusing.
