Forgot your username or password?
Lately, the funnies aren’t just making people laugh. They’re also making many mad as hell.
And I’m not talking about the usual suspects here. Editorial cartoonists are supposed to be provocative, and if they aren’t, they ought to change their title to “illustrator.” Daily papers that drop The Boondocks
strip–most recently over Aaron McGruder’s implied use of “nigger” and
reference to Dubya’s alleged former marijuana and cocaine use–have
become as routine as Wile E. Coyote dropping an anvil on himself (See
No, this time the anger is about what are normally considered to be
lightweight cartoon genres, and all of them concern matters of
sexuality. The most publicized incident has to do with a certain bright
yellow, anthropomorphized kitchen cleaning aid. SpongeBob has been
getting the squeeze from James Dobson’s “Focus on the Family”
conservative pressure group. Subsequent to his association with a video
intended to promote tolerance, he’s been accused of having a homosexual
agenda hidden in those square pants.
Robin Williams thought the issue deserved to be ridiculed during his
Academy Award appearance to introduce the animated feature category.
Using the persona of a fundamentalist preacher, he planned to perform a
gospel song that heightened the absurdity of the allegations. Lyrics
would have included “Pinocchio’s had his nose done / Sleeping Beauty’s
popping pills / the Three Little Pigs ain’t kosher / Betty Boop works
The Oscar’s producer, however, wanted the bit to be “less
political,” so Williams proposed replacing the persona with a lisping
fairy–apparently the academy felt more comfortable if gays, not
right-wing zealots, were made an object of mockery–who would dish about
how “Fred Flintstone is dyslexic / Jessica Rabbit is really a man /
Olive Oyl’s really anorexic / and Casper’s in the Ku Klux Klan.” Then
ABC’s broadcast standards and practices office stepped in to object to
the “sexual tone” of the material, as well as anything that, as The New
York Times reported, “... might be seen as glorifying drug use or
offending Native Americans or disabled people.”
Ultimately, Williams delivered a relatively neutered monologue,
noting Bugs Bunny is “... in more dresses than J. Edgar Hoover at Mardi
Gras.” A safe statement for sure, and obvious to anyone, child or adult,
who has seen “What’s Opera, Doc?” and other classic Chuck
Jones-directed Looney Tunes (See Fig. 2).
Further SpongeBob commentary included a feature from The Nation
from February 21, 2005. The cover drawing, by Gene Case and Stephen
Kling, pictured Nickelodeon’s beloved children’s idol on a wooden
crucifix; the absurdity heightened by the blissfully goofy grin on his
thorn-crowned face (See Fig. 3).
The article, by Richard Goldstein, also cited a cartoon in The Nation’s
own issue on January 24, 2005, one that insulted and confused a segment
of its typically liberal readership. Done by Robert Grossman, it
purported to be a daguerreotype that supported a recent theory that
Abraham Lincoln was gay. It depicted the bearded, top-hatted President
with a buxom body, provocatively outfitted in Victorian corset,
pantaloons and heels (See Fig. 4).
In heated letters to the editor, readers complained that the
caricature indicated “Babe Lincoln” was trans-gendered, a transvestite,
or possibly a hermaphrodite (none of which are inherently homosexual
traits) and deplored what they saw as homophobic stereotyping. In
defense, another writer found the protesters to be, in essence,
splitting pubic hairs and suggested they lighten up and enjoy what may
very well be an affectionate portrait. The cartoonist and the editors
dutifully apologized, not necessarily for the joke per se, but for “having offended anyone.”
Leaving gender agendas aside, as a follower (I might even call
myself “fan”) of controversial comics, I took these various
brou-hah-hahs as an opportunity to stroll down deja vu lane. I found myself laughing, not only at the cartoons, but at the memories they triggered.
When I read about Williams’ original preacher routine, for instance,
I immediately recalled the Disneyland-Memorial-Orgy spread Wallace Wood
had drawn for Paul Krassner’s Realist, a magazine of
“freethought, criticism and satire,” on the occasion of Uncle Walt’s
death in 1966. Left to their own devices, the Magic Kingdom’s
inhabitants, including Beauty, Pinocchio and the Pigs, descended into a
debauchery of sex, drugs and scatology (See Fig. 5). The litigious
Disney corporation considered filing a lawsuit, then decided the
publicity would cause them further embarrassment.
Williams’ proposed song revision made me think of another Krassner-Wood collaboration for MAD
magazine from ten years earlier. The premise was that comic strip
characters would answer classified ads for self-improvement products,
such as hollow-eyed Orphan Annie sending away for mascara (See Fig. 6).
However, MAD’s publisher, not wanting to risk the wrath of
their teenage readership’s mothers, omitted one in which Olive Oyl
Crucifixions, with their inherent iconic power, have been
practically a staple for cover design. Art Spiegelman’s 1995 tax-time New Yorker
cover showed a rabbit in a business suit, pockets emptied, affixed to a
1040 form (See Fig. 7). And Krassner, during his brief stint as
publisher of Hustler in 1978, illustrated a cover story on the
commercialization of Easter with a photo, taken by Frank DeLia, of a
fluffy, cuddly, stuffed and bloodied bunny stuck to a cross (See Fig.
8). In their times, both these images were viewed by some as
disrespectful to Christianity.
Grossman’s Lincoln cartoon gave me a flashback to Monocle, a
landmark, but unfortunately obscure, humor magazine from the early
1960s that defined itself as “politics, polemics, and satire for the
sub-influential.” Writers included John Gregory Dunne, Calvin Trillin,
Dan Greenberg and Godfrey Cambridge. Grossman was also a regular
One of Grossman’s strips, done in collaboration with Chuck Alverson,
shows CIA operative Roger Ruthless, assigned to spy on President
Kennedy, disguised in one panel as a woman (See Fig. 9). If nothing
else, this strip seems to indicate that Grossman may simply enjoy
depicting men in drag.
As a spoof, Monocle’s “news managing editor,” Marvin
Kitman–currently a Newsday television critic–conducted a tongue-in-cheek
campaign for President as a “Lincoln Republican” on the Party’s 1864
platform: he vowed to abolish slavery, only this time for real.
Consequently Lincoln was a recurring Monocle motif, rendered by PushPin Studios luminaries Seymour Chwast and Paul Davis (See Fig. 10, 11). Monocle’s
logo, a 19th-century display slab serif designed by its art director,
Philip Gips, also bears more than a passing resemblance to Grossman’s
“Babe Lincoln” headline.
One last factoid: Kitman’s campaign manager in his bid for the White House, Victor S. Navasky, just happened to be Monocle’s editor. Navasky is also the current publisher and editorial director of The Nation.
I asked Grossman if his Lincoln, and lettering, was partly meant as a
subliminal homage to Navasky’s earlier, unapologetically free-spirited
publication, but he dismissed the notion out of hand. I’d also wager
that in the case of most, if not all, of the cartoon connections I’ve
been making, any resemblance between current humor and past punchlines
are merely a figment of my free-associative mind.
But even if Robin Williams’ writers, or Case and Kling, or Grossman had derived inspiration from these or other sources, so what and why not?
Only the most fanatical proponent of intellectual property protection
could possibly object. The greater our knowledge of comics history, the
richer our appreciation of current work will be, to say nothing of the
enormous potential to contemporize old concepts in fresh new ways. In an
essay from The Education of a Comics Artist, Craig Yoe, a
designer who regularly incorporates the funnies into his work, addressed
aspiring cartoonists thusly: “Those who don’t study the toon past are
doomed to not repeat it!”
What makes stereotyping, originally a printing process, the most dubious of all behavioral pseudo-sciences? The Ewens' examine the reasons why reducing individuals to types robs them of their humanity.
Section: Inspiration -
interview, Voice, diversity
The redesign is not meant to indirectly criticize someone’s work; rather it is a quest to present content from another perspective.
Designing for the Context in which We Live: In the Studio with Kim Colin of Industrial Facility
7 days ago from
Second Story Interactive Studios
Athenna_Design (ATHENNA DESIGN)
A Timeline of Climate Talks, Milestones and Policies http://t.co/ukwqMT7ZUz #Foz #Design
20 minutes ago
Thinking outside the chair
Alt Group Limited
September 19, 2014
Front end WordPress Developer (Design Skills a plus) – Liquis Design
September 18, 2014
Do Good Design
Le Musée grandit (The Museum is growing)