I understand the point you're making as it is one of my main frustrations with a lot of art these days; they perpetuate the very thing they claim to criticize. but I think that's a pretty low bar and one the cover clearly passes. Christians cannot literally walk on water. No one believes that because it is a verifiable fact. It is, therefore, pretty clearly a commentary. This isn't a subtle cartoon.
Charlie Hebdo publishes cartoon of drowned Syrian toddler, "Muslims sink"
- Thread starter The Technomancer
- Start date
- Status
I understand the point you're making as it is one of my main frustrations with a lot of art these days; they perpetuate the very thing they claim to criticize. but I think that's a pretty low bar and one the cover clearly passes. Christians cannot literally walk on water. No one believes that because it is a verifiable fact. It is, therefore, pretty clearly a commentary. This isn't a subtle cartoon.
obviously it doesn't, hence the thread
LookAtMeGo
Member
Thats fucked up.
hydrophilic attack
Member
I agree that sitting by while people drown is really poor taste. And probably I should have said that the comics were arguably in poor taste, rather than definitely in poor taste.
Omegasquash
Member
From what I see, they're saying that Europe is Christian and as such doesn't give a shit about dying Muslim children.
Still comes off as using the crisis to make money. A bit opportunistic, and that's why I'm not too keen on it.
Still comes off as using the crisis to make money. A bit opportunistic, and that's why I'm not too keen on it.
Local politicans still argue they should only accept christian immigrants.
If it actually did cater to the lowest common denominator then the image would include a paragraph explaining what satire is and a lengthy explanation of why this fits into the definition of satire.
EdibleExplosives
Member
The posts on the front page that were basically implying that they're doing this for attention because people have forgotten about them since the tragedy are incredibly fucked up.
/r/iamverysmart
/r/iamverysmart
Lovely Salsa
Banned
So what happened to Slovakia? Did they get the 100 christians they said they would take? If so, how did they know who was christian and who was muslim?
PdotMichael
Banned
Does the reality deserve more "tasteful" comics?
It's not that the topic is something trivial like retirement age or a highway expansion but people are dying for real.
a short look at the penis.
No, no it's not. The meaning is incredibly clear in these two cartoons- they're not pretending to celebrate the deaths of children- they're using the imagery to hit you out of your complacency and get you to pay attention to the issue.
So we should just shut down any form of political commentary in newpapers/magazines/etc?
Neoriceisgood
Member
I'm mostly talking about the McDonalds one. The Christian one is whatever.
I'm treating them as seperate cartoons.
I do feel like a certain level of depth or talent makes me more comfortable and/or accepting of someone using hot button issues or sensitive imagery in their satire or comedy.
Like to me the "offensive" part here isn't that they're making fun of the kid/muslims or whatever, but that it comes across as a bit exploitative to use the imagery for what boils down to a really shallow attempt at making a point.
In a sense doesn't it make the cartoon essentially the same as people sharing photos of that kid on FB? "Oh look how awful" while proceeding to do nothing? I don't see how it elevates the conversation beyond what the photo itself already did.
(again, mostly talking about the mcdonalds one.)
I don't have any feelings about the Jesus one, I at least get the purpose.
It's the McDonalds one that annoys me.
They checked to see if they could walk on water.
You are a political and satirical magazine in Europe. What do you write about?
I don't know how it's in the US but this is the Page 1 story of pretty much the whole month so far.
entremet
Member
Exactly
Satire isn't about copying and pasting what other people would do. Satire exposes the logical conclusions of their actions.
An anti-immigrant publication wouldn't create imagery like that. They would do everything to hype their values while excusing or ignoring the negatives. The negatives in this case would be the drowning child juxtaposed next to Europe being a commercial land of plenty or filled with awesome Christians.
Satire like the one in these articles forces these people to confront the ugly side of their marketing / image management.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
Seeing as a lot of people in this thread don't get the image, looks like they didn't.
Neoriceisgood
Member
I think the cover is just made to make you think (or feel bad) " I don't want to be that guy that is indifferent \ No I'm not that guy" and thus make you act or at least care about what's happening.
People not getting it doesn't automatically make something high art. Prank videos thrive on angry and confused responses for their comedy. Are they highbrow?
Let's face it, people are calling this highbrow are looking for some intellectual high ground, when really this is scraping the bottom of the barrel like most political cartoons. As I said, the point it makes is admirable, but the confused responses are coming from US posters lack of knowledge of the migrant crisis. The cartoon is pretty simple. I'm not going to pretend is isn't because of 5 posts at the beginning of the thread. If a person as dumb as me can get it after 10 seconds, it aint highbrow.
slow down, let me explain this
the cartoon is simple, great...it appeals to the lowest common denominator (of people who get the cartoon)
then there are people that didn't even get it at this level of simplicity
those people are the lowest common denominator
PdotMichael
Banned
What is good satire?
Repeating saying that something is low tier doesn't really support your point in a significant way. It just make you appear like a try hard.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
1) Satire catering to the lowest common denominator would essentially just be spelling out the joke instead of letting the satire do it's work. This cartoon does not do that. It's even debatable to call it satire at that point.
2) Even so, expecting a piece of satirical comedy to not cater to the lowest common denominator and praising it for not doing so is not the same thing as calling it a masterpiece. There is a wide gulf between satirical comedic genius, and satirical comedy that doesn't spell out the punchline to it's audience. Most satirical comedy (And comedy in general) falls into this gulf, including this piece.
MisterR
Member
It obviously doesn't, since the lowest common denominator couldn't even understand that it was satire.
hydrophilic attack
Member
No, I agree with you! That's why I said that the comics are in poor taste, but still brilliant and hopefully eye-opening for some. The cartoons were in poor taste, but making cartoons in poor taste is called for in this situation.
DerangedHermit
Member
Maybe you should make yet another post about how simple it is, perhaps this time it will be true.
PatThePassive
Member
Its not profound but I can post some really shallow political cartoons that are way more heavy handed then this one
MisterR
Member
Let's face it, you're the one trying to climb on an intellectual high ground. It's no satirical masterpiece. It is fairly effective satire. Just because it's below your high standard of satire, doesn't really prove anything.
Satire: the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
To me it's making fun of Christians who believe they walk on water...or maybe its just making fun of anyone with religious beliefs. the comic is blatantly ridiculous.
nckillthegrimace
Member
So I guess no for profit news or social commentary organizations should discuss is. Any profit they see from ad revenue or copies sold is blood money.
Good Satire doesn't equal high brow Satire. I'm not being a try hard about anything. There's a certain snobbery with people who read political cartoons that shouldn't exist. The fact that an idiot like me gets it petty much proves my point. I'm not deluded enough to think I'm above this sort of comedy.
More Fun To Compute
Member
A problem with satire is that you have to separate it's principles, which are high brow, from it's implementation. Which is often shocking and low brow.
Like one of the most famous lines in satire is, "who watches the watchmen." People understand why this is a satirical principle that you can apply to many different levels of society. But when the Roman Juvenal wrote it he was actually talking about how it's hard to stop your wife fucking other men because even if you hire a watchman to follow her who is going to stop the watchman fucking her.
Like one of the most famous lines in satire is, "who watches the watchmen." People understand why this is a satirical principle that you can apply to many different levels of society. But when the Roman Juvenal wrote it he was actually talking about how it's hard to stop your wife fucking other men because even if you hire a watchman to follow her who is going to stop the watchman fucking her.
Neoriceisgood
Member
It's not just that it isn't profound that's annoying me btw.
Like ... that McDonalds cartoon doesn't really add anything to the original photo, does it?
Just the original photo of a dead child washed up on the beach like that suggests a carelessness about the situation that it even got to that point. Adding that McDonalds sign to that image feels like explaining the joke.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
Never change GAF
This entire thread is satire.
People are declaring these comics as poor in taste and not the political conditions that inspired them. If you want to express your disgust at CH it should be because the point flew over your head. Otherwise your disgust should be for the people you know who inspired it, read it and will still make excuses for their behavior after being confronted.
People are declaring these comics as poor in taste and not the political conditions that inspired them. If you want to express your disgust at CH it should be because the point flew over your head. Otherwise your disgust should be for the people you know who inspired it, read it and will still make excuses for their behavior after being confronted.
It adds a pretty good deal. 2 for 1 with no coupon is pretty legit.
Ding ding ding. Jesus Christ, people
OverBlood 3
Banned
The trolls started a magazine and it's Charlie Hebdo. I'm learning so much today.
Neoriceisgood
Member
This makes me wonder if there's actually a McDonalds deal like that going on in France right now.
That'd at least explain what made them decide on that cartoon.
"Oh a kids deal, hey wasn't there something with a kid in the news".
Please stop, take the L.
Am I part of a debate I dont know about..by saying they are trolls and not the political climate that accepts this?
I dont mean to use a word to trivialize the issue. But what I mean is it seems their motive to antagonize the muslim comnunity. At the magazine. Which surely represents an accepting culture of this.
Last time people came to defend their actions as free speach against fanatics. But it seems the call is coming from inside the house.
If people are downplaying by using the word troll, that wasnt my intention. Just catching up on toilet atm..
Clearly Charlie Hebdo must be supporting ISIS.
A lot of the Charlie Hebdo stuff reminds me of Brant, The Physical Cartoonist.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
I have never actually argued that it is not satire (although we argued about satire in the abstract), what I've said is that people assume that its satirical when similar cartoons that non-satirically express support for ugly but genuine sentiments aren't uncommon. It doesn't have to be funny, sure, absolutely agreed. But it does have to be satirical in this specific way? It might not just be some real ugliness?
PdotMichael
Banned
It's not that hard. Take 2 kids, for the price of one kid (read: dead)
There isn't much to discuss about that part of the satire.
- Status