Below are some words from Art Spiegelman about several recent cartoonist related events.
A very good MSNBC interview on with Speigelman and Francoise Mouly speaking on the same subject can be seen here.
Though Spring Semester has ended and Iâm no longer Professor Hebdo, I will always be interested in talking openly about these issues.
On Tuesday night, Art Spiegelman hosted a table at the PEN gala, after other authors dropped out in protest of an award being given to French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Here, he speaks to TIME about the award and why cartoons are so misunderstood by many Americans.
TIME: After six writers withdrew from hosting last nightâs PEN gala honoring Charlie Hebdo, why did you decide to step up and co-host the event?
Spiegelman: It seemed necessary as a corrective to what I saw as boneheaded reasons for the pullout. I decided to accept an invitation to host a table that Iâd passed on before, because black tie galas arenât my thing, and I had something else I was supposed to do that night. But after those six authors, who Iâve come to think of as a kind of super hero team called the Sanctimonious Six, pulled out, I just felt that it was necessary to be a corrective and invite other sympathetic people to be there to shout, âCartoonist lives matter.â
Why was it important to honor Charlie Hebdo with the James C. Goodale Freedom of Expression Courage Award?
One point that was made over and over again was that this is an award for courage. And itâs hard to be more courageous than going back to work after your office has been bombed and your comrades have been slaughtered. On those grounds alone, one would think, âItâs a no brainer. They get the award.â
Beyond that, the magazine was getting a really bum rap. Itâs actually anything but a racist magazine. One of the most touching things for me during the award ceremony last night was having the head of SOS Racisme, a French organization that combats racist activity, very movingly talk about Charlie Hebdo being a great force against racism in France.
They received the award for using their particular vocabulary and medium to stir debate on issues, not to create mischief, and they did it estimably, even when people didnât agree with them. As one of the editors pointed out yesterday, the Charlie Hebdo editors donât even agree with each other. The point of these cartoons is to start conversations about these issues. And these issues are not trivial.
This week, we also saw a shooting in Texas outside of a âDraw Muhammadâ contest sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative. Whatâs the difference between Charlie Hebdo and Pamela Gellerâs organization?
I think thatâs when my brain short-circuited. Because superficially, it seems like, well, the same thing is happening in Texas. But itâs not. Itâs the anti-matter, Bizarro World, flipside, mirror-logic version of what Charlie Hebdo is about.
The American Freedom Defense Initiative is racist organization. Itâs exactly the nightmare version that the writers who were protesting the PEN award thought Charlie was. But Charlie is an anti-racist, political magazine that does not have an agenda that consists of wanting to bait or trouble Muslims.
Pam Gellerâs organization is intentionally trying to start war of culture with Islam by saying that all Muslims are terrorists under the surface, and weâre going to prove it. Do the group members deserve free speech protection? Of course. But theyâre hiding behind that banner with things that have very little to do with free speech and a lot to do with race hate.
What is the role of images and cartoons in this debate?
Itâs interesting to me that cartoons have been so central to it. Cartoons are so much more immediate than prose. They have a visceral power that doesnât require you to slow down, but it does require you to slow down if you want to understand them.
They have a deceptive directness that writers can only envy. They deploy the same tools that writers often use: symbolism, irony, metaphor. Cartoons enter your eye in a blink, and canât be unseen after theyâre seen. But to understand some of these cartoons requires a lot of culture immersion and symbol reading and a lot of analysis.
There was a New Yorker cover back in the beginning of my time at the magazine that helped change the magazineâs DNA enough to embrace controversial images. It was in the wake of the Crown Heights race riots in which the West Indian black community and the Hasidic Jew community came to bloody blows. As I was doodling I wondered, âWhat would the guy with the monocle look like if he were Hasidic?â And then I had a black woman kiss him.
When the cover came out, it created a riot of its ownâas much indignation on both sides as possible in the world before the Internet. Among the letters that came in to the magazine was a letter from a young woman saying that she thought it was really sweet that on Abe Lincolnâs birthday there was a picture of Lincoln kissing a slave. Whatâs so amazing about that is that it gets right to the heart of the problem that some of the protesting PEN writers have: learning to read images. Theyâre very easy to misread without enough information, and some of my writing brethren are great mis-readers.
What would you like to see moving forward?
We should be teaching visual literacy in all schools. Weâre bombarded with images more and more, and we have less and less time to understand them. Whatâs amazing about these simple drawings is that they stand still long enough for you to circle them and get around them in ways you often canât with videos.
Itâs not easy for Americans, because for one thing there are hardly any political cartoonists in America at this point. Political cartoonists are a dying breed. Here there are fewer newspapers, fewer newspapers with a cartoonist on staff, and political cartoons have been reduced to being a variant of a gag cartoon because the last thing a newspaper would want to do is lose a single reader.
Iâm stuck having to agree with my bĂȘte noir friend Pam Geller that it would be better going forward for newspapers and magazines to take on the responsibility for showing these images. When the Danish Muhammad cartoons appeared in 2006, and when the Mohammad cartoons from Charlie Hebdo appeared, newspapers should have shown these images and talked about them. Many dismissed them as banal and treated them as, âNothing to see here, move along.â
If it were taken as a matter of course for newspapers and magazines to show these images, they could be normalized, so the many Muslims not offended to the point of grabbing a machine gun could understand that this is how our culture functions with images and issues. It would create a better-informed population dealing with whatever comes next. It would also be useful to have other voices on newspaper and magazine staffs.
Whatâs the mistake in not publishing images that could be deemed offensive?
Thereâs no stopping it. What would it be based on? Would it be based on when someone takes up arms against the image? Would it be based on when someone thinks itâs offensive? God knows where the line would be drawn. It canât be drawn that way. There is an incredible efficiency cartoons have, once you learn to read them, in clarifying the issues at hand, making them memorable.
Thereâs something basic about cartoons. They work they way the brain works. We think in small, iconic images. An infant can recognize a smiley face before it can recognize its motherâs smile. We think in little bursts of language. This is how cartoons are structured. Theyâre structured to talk to something deep inside our brains. A cartoon becomes a new kind of word that didnât exist before.
Itâs interesting how little respect they get. âOh, anyone could draw that crude, vulgar scrawl,â said a number of critics of Charlie Hedbo. Thatâs not quite true. Theyâre not totally dismissible. If a writer had made some of the points that Charlie Hebdo had made, I donât think the writers protesting PEN would have been so condescending and dismissive.
(Below, more of Art Speigelmanâs New Yorker Covers)