One doesn't need to go back to the times of cavemen to prove the lasting importance of illustration. Quoting Chinese proverbs is not necessary either. Everyday life features plenty of meaningful images. For many decades now, even centuries, this everyday reality includes cartoons. Maybe there exist some people who dislike the genre - but I think these are very few. Personally I have always sought for cartoons, in the "grown-up's" print I came across. Some magazines regularly featured such figures as the Stingy Man [Spangorammenos in Greek]; later I learned to distinguish the styles of several newspaper cartoonists, domestic ones at first (Skoulas in the Greek daily Apogevmatini being my earliest such memory) and later world-famous celebrities (e.g. Plantu). I must admit that the simultaneous presence of many cartoonists at the Rion Antirion Bridge (in 2005, I think) was one of the most hilarious company events I ever participated in.
As for Adams, creator of Dilbert (a satire primarily of large firms' employees and executives), he has remarked that the very proximity of a popular person to other, deplorable persons (or things, or situations) is often a reason to get offended. He is himself a casualty of this, since some faithful people criticized him for the following strip, in which - he claims - the gullibility of "souvenir" collectors had been the main object of satire.
The recent furor over a cartoon by Hantzopoulos [depicted below] is of a similar nature, even if the popularity of the two female MP's implied in it (Mrs Konstantopoulou and Mrs Makri) is far less than that of Sinatra or of Our Lord. The proximity pattern is present here, too. The cartoonist targets the impression-mongering (the two MPs had climbed Greek state TV's railings in a protest) - at the same time, though, the pole-dancing metaphor as well as an alluding phrase used ("will they do anything else as well?") are violating the line which, in the minds of many people, should separate a public figure (in particular a woman) from "abuse of their bodies".
If you're asking myself, I had considered a similar matter almost 8 years ago, after a Dane had drawn a picture of Prophet Muhammad. I have re-read what I had written back then and I realize it is also valid for me today, word for word, therefore - instead of another conclusion - I choose to copy it in full (the original was in Greek only).
In favour of the irreverent
A cartoon can be extremely powerful, we all know that. Trudeau (the Doonesbury strip creator, dealing primarily with American topics - familiar to me through the International Herald Tribune) had annoyed Sinatra when, shortly after a public honour, showed him as being friends with organized crime figures.
As for Adams, creator of Dilbert (a satire primarily of large firms' employees and executives), he has remarked that the very proximity of a popular person to other, deplorable persons (or things, or situations) is often a reason to get offended. He is himself a casualty of this, since some faithful people criticized him for the following strip, in which - he claims - the gullibility of "souvenir" collectors had been the main object of satire.
The recent furor over a cartoon by Hantzopoulos [depicted below] is of a similar nature, even if the popularity of the two female MP's implied in it (Mrs Konstantopoulou and Mrs Makri) is far less than that of Sinatra or of Our Lord. The proximity pattern is present here, too. The cartoonist targets the impression-mongering (the two MPs had climbed Greek state TV's railings in a protest) - at the same time, though, the pole-dancing metaphor as well as an alluding phrase used ("will they do anything else as well?") are violating the line which, in the minds of many people, should separate a public figure (in particular a woman) from "abuse of their bodies".
If you're asking myself, I had considered a similar matter almost 8 years ago, after a Dane had drawn a picture of Prophet Muhammad. I have re-read what I had written back then and I realize it is also valid for me today, word for word, therefore - instead of another conclusion - I choose to copy it in full (the original was in Greek only).
In favour of the irreverent
04.02.06 at 20:08 EET
Denmark's organized society hasn't been known in recent years for their sympathy to foreigners, especially if these are dark-coloured and/or slit-eyed - such as the Danes' nominal fellow citizens from Greenland, for example. So, at first sight, racist superiority feelings could have been diagnosed in the famous caricatures satirizing Prophet Muhammad - and Muslims treading on the Danish flag in cities all over the world wouldn't have made one too sad.
The problem with the avalanche of dismissals, bans and "political correctness" that followed the publication of the notorious cartoons is, of course, more serious. I found it very interesting to read opinions reflecting two different approaches to satire - and to free expression, in general. Denmark's organized society hasn't been known in recent years for their sympathy to foreigners, especially if these are dark-coloured and/or slit-eyed - such as the Danes' nominal fellow citizens from Greenland, for example. So, at first sight, racist superiority feelings could have been diagnosed in the famous caricatures satirizing Prophet Muhammad - and Muslims treading on the Danish flag in cities all over the world wouldn't have made one too sad.
One approach, the same one that my friends and myself have followed in [our satirical webpage] www.laspi.gr,
has been very eloquently described by the great Greek cartoonist Costas Mitropoulos in Ta Nea paper: making a cartoon (or an article) "respectful and harmful at the same time". It entails a certain degree of self-censorship and has the advantage of usability (should the need ever arise) also in countries or environments (corporate etc.) where freedom of expression is subject to certain limitations (greater or lesser ones).
The other approach lies in testing the limits of the respective environment, taking your risks of course but, at the end, almost inevitably widening the scope for acceptability (and narrowing the forbidden zone). It is the daring ones that open the road towards greater liberty. I find it hard to follow their way but I do admire them and I think history will be on their side.
How each mass medium and each country will handle that matter is their own business. Let me simply point out that, if a similar satire had been made regarding Jesus, the reaction would have been limited to announcements by the Vatican or to lawsuits at worst. It is the fear of violent retaliation by Muslim "suicide bombers", not any kind of great sensitivity towards religious feelings, that very obviously dictates the hasty "wrap-up" of the Prophet cartoons issue. This, however, is in my opinion the very definition of terrorism.
