Letting you draw your own conclusions
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/02/09/opinion/edpatrick.php
Letting you draw your own conclusions
Patrick Chappatte
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2006GENEVA In the past, when I've been asked about the power of cartoons, I've raised eyebrows by saying that I didn't think editorial cartoons had much influence. What might then have sounded like false modesty now seems simply out of touch, given the furor stirred all over the world by a dozen drawings in a Danish newspaper. But I stick to my belief: I don't think a cartoon has ever made someone change his mind.
Cartoons, for sure, are a powerful tool of communication. They are not able - like ideas, and arguments - to take you where you aren't ready to go. But they have an unmatched power of synthesis. People have long understood that images can be weapons. What is sickening to me about the recent events is the misuse that has been made of cartoons - in this case, by both sides.
The intention behind those 12 cartoons was dubious in the first place. The Prophet Muhammad did not appear merely as a cartoon character - which one could defend on the basis that he is a historic and religious figure, and that the ban on representing him should not apply to non-Muslims. Muhammad was represented precisely because Muslims forbid that he be depicted.
It is a bit cheap to test your freedom on the back of other people's beliefs - to tell them, "Hey, this is totally taboo in your culture, look how free I am to break this taboo." Why would 12 cartoonists have responded to such a silly assignment in the first place? It is always easier to judge afterward, but this is not how editorial cartooning works. This job is about freedom of mind and independent thinking. No one should come to you and tell you what to draw.
On the other side, those same cartoons have been used by fanatics and authoritarian regimes - the people who don't mind having their national papers adorned with ugly cartoons that depict Jews in a way reminiscent of the caricatures used by the Nazis.
Images have been misused these past days to stir up anger and misunderstanding. We have come to the point where people have died because of cartoons. It's enough to make one despair.
Many people on both sides have spoken on behalf of grand principles. The banner of Democracy has been raised opposite the banner of Religion. But I want to speak for my profession. The aim of a political cartoon is not in itself - and should not be - to hurt. The aim is to make a point.
It can be a political or a moral point. It can be funny or serious. In the process, it can hurt feelings and offend political beliefs or religious principles, but this is collateral damage. Muhammad is not a subject. Violent radical Islamism is a subject. Humiliation of the Palestinian people is a subject.
It's worrying that some observers are suggesting new laws that forbid insulting religions. Already, in the last decade, the freedom of satire has suffered. Political correctness, economic pressure on newspapers and a poor appetite for controversy among some news media owners have thinned the ranks of editorial cartooning.
Cartoons are not, in essence, ugly, as a French philosopher recently implied. They can be used in an ugly way. And the art of satire is often discredited by the poor taste of those who practice it. But because they can conjure with a few strokes of a pen the horrors and idiocies of the world, because they are able to reveal truths behind media spin, political cartoons are good for the health of our society.
They won't make you change your mind, as I've said, but for five seconds, they might make you smile. And maybe, for five more seconds, they'll get you to think.
