Poodle (the game) samizdat, the New Yorker Obama Cover edition.
Ethan Persoff says,
A new game of Poodle (about the game) is live on COMICS WITH PROBLEMS, this time using the New Yorker cover as the game ball.POODLE SAMIZDAT: SPECIAL NEW YORKER EDITION [ Comics With Problems ]Goal is to see if it's possible, through poodle method, to make a universally offensive cover out of this wishy washy half-satire that no one can seem to agree upon.
the latest
latest episodes
They should stop right now! It's perfect!
I'll regret these words if tomorrow night they take it to new heights of surreality.
It's close... so close...
imho, only Xeni would post this, because she is the "Enfant Terrible" of BB.
I'm unclear as to what's going on. The "about" link doesn't explain anything.
LSK,
The cover of the New Yorker this week contained caricature of Barack and Michelle Obama, which was clearly designed to lampoon ridiculous stereotypes that some people (esp conservatives) believe about Obama. Instead people have acted as though the caricature endorses those stereotypes, and in the process shown that they don't understand satire at all.
You can see the Daily Show coverage of it here:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=176628&title=obama-cartoon
But my favorite treatment is political cartoonist Tom Tomorrow's lesson on satire here:
http://thismodernworld.com/4402
It would be great if it was one of those Mad magazine back pages that fold in that depicts a tomahawk missile flying into the world trade center north tower.
LSK> I think it's just another form of photoshop tennis.
@SIRDOOK,
I speak from the point of view of a person not white, not black, not Muslim, not Christian, not a terrorist, not an unquestioningly loyal citizen.
I don't think the situation vis a vis the original intent of satire and what the cover was satirizing is quite as black and white (if you will) as you present it.
While I, yes, think that the visual and political jokes involved in the cover are potentially humorous from my own point of view, I can also see what might possibly be objectionable about it to folks for whom the objectionableness outweighs the value they find in the satire, the humor and/or the political message.
How about you?
Huh, that makes the cover look less like the crappy original and more like a bizarre version of a Richard Hamilton collage.
I guess I don't get it either. Is the goal to make something "better" than the original cover? Every one of them I saw didn't really do it. In fact the "best" one I absolutely don't get. It's sort of random weird stuff.
Holtt> Not necessarily 'better,' just modified. And i would think attempting to make something more funny being part of the plan.
Personally i don't get it. But my sense of humor is askew as it is.
I'm sorry...but that's kind of a mess. Too much, too silly, not so much satirical. 'Dr. Strangelove,' for instance, is satire; the Three Stooges is silly. That's why Mad Magazine so often failed; it became silly (when it wasn't brilliantly satirical, of course), and tried to do too much with too much; the result was often a train wreck of intentions. Why did Kubrick cut the food fight scene from 'Strangelove'? Because it wasn't supposed to be a hormone movie like 'Animal House;' it was supposed to be adult satire, and it is; it is Art worthy of a master.
The original cover, although no masterpiece, made its point. People who objected probably don't read the 'New Yorker' anyway. Satire and wit has always been its forte (along with strange short stories), and although it often fails at it, it has the best track record in the history of American publishing at what it does.
Instead people have acted as though the caricature endorses those stereotypes, and in the process shown that they don't understand satire at all.
Yeah, but half the population of Ohio believes that Senator Obama is muslim because they heard it 'somewhere reliable'. The US population is largely satire and irony challenged.
The concept of "Poodle" is simply Photoshop tennis with a huge dose of "look at me, I'm an artist" smeared all over it.
I love satire, but I am a misanthrope and have an IQ higher than my body temperature, so I probably wouldn't have published it because I never overestimate the intelligence of the American people, knowing that their received wisdom comes from "somewhere reliable." David Remnick isn't misanthrope enough to edit the NY. Or maybe he's a closet Republican.
There's some good political cartoons about the magazine cover political cartoon-gate here: http://cagle.com/news/NewYorkerCover/
Any change to the original cover is welcome. Lord knows I want to be cool and laugh at this awesome "satire," but I don't really get it. It seems to say, "yeah, right, you idiots, Obama and his wife are secret Muslim terrorists." That's not enough to make it great satire. There was a similar joke on SNL years ago. Phil Hartman played Ronald Reagan as a doddering old man in public, but a tireless supergenius behind closed doors. It was a hilarious sketch that actually had an implied critique of America's hand in world affairs, as well as a critique of Reagan, who probably didn't really know what was going on. The New Yorker cover is missing that extra layer. Without it, it's just smug sarcasm.
(With apologies: Is there anyone more tedious than a guy who tries to tell you how wrong you are for laughing at something?)
I never said it was good satire. I've never paid much attention to the New Yorker anyway. I'm just saying it was obviously satire, and it's a silly thing to get upset over. And both the Daily Show and Tom Tomorrow do a good job making fun of people who are offended by it.