Thanks go to RHT for this one . . .
-
Recent Posts
Archives
Categories
- Art (88)
- Behavior and Psychology (20)
- Business, Industry and Finance (63)
- Constitution and Law (370)
- Consumer Affairs (4)
- Culture (17)
- Deep State (5)
- Economy (3)
- Education (238)
- Environment (74)
- Fraud Alert (8)
- Global Issues (1)
- Health and Medicine (149)
- History (8)
- Humour (94)
- Military (115)
- Morals and Ethics (149)
- News Media (11)
- Police, Crime, Security (215)
- Politics and Government (144)
- Religion (91)
- Science and Technology (19)
- Veterans' Issues (13)
- World (12)
Recent Comments
- ClayPidgeon on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Michael Davis on Life In Chico and Other Places Infected by Bums
- Patricia Lieder on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
- Dawn on Thaddeus Kerns Boy Aviator
- scott sproat on Scam Calls from the American Police Association
Recent NorCal Blogs Posts
If I can play art critic for a moment: I don’t get it.
Who is the woman on the right? Why is she dressed to go to a party? This is distracting. Who is she speaking to? Is she supposed to be a former football fan, disillusioned by the protests? There is no indication that that is the case, so if this is supposed to be a comment about how the protests will drive people away, it doesn’t work; how do we know she ever cared about football? I know people who have made comments such as hers for years.
What is the relationship of the woman to the quote on the left? What is the relationship between the quote and the kneeling players? The quote condemns people who prefer servitude to freedom and wealth to liberty…but that can’t possibly be applied to the protesting players, who are exercising their freedom of speech and refusing to be compelled to stand for the anthem. Some, like Kaepernick, did so while risking their careers, so it can’t be said his purpose was money rather than freedom.
This is a rather incoherent and sloppy meme. It looks ugly and off-putting, and there is no unity between the two sides of the image, or even within each side. Certainly there must be a clearer way of illustrating the creator’s disdain for the NFL protests than this poorly constructed mess. Perhaps he could have shown the woman as a rabid NFL fan on the left side, labeling an image of her “2016,” before transitioning to show her in 2018 unconcerned by the league; then the implication that she was disillusioned by the protests would make sense.
I hope this is not typical of Chris Muir’s work.
OK, I just looked through his archives out of curiosity. I see incoherent and bizarre cartoons are his speciality.
I thought the fact that the woman in the cartoon above was wearing a party dress was distracting–well, here, Muir draws what appears to be the same woman completely naked.
https://www.daybydaycartoon.com/comic/men-women/
What is happening here? Is she a stripper? Why is a stripper bringing up Obama and border enforcement?
Here she is again, naked, for no reason, as the artist attempts to badly mimic a black style of speaking:
https://www.daybydaycartoon.com/comic/black-jaysus/
What is the setting in this one? Where is one man in relation to the other?
https://www.daybydaycartoon.com/comic/russian-to-judgement-2/
What does this one even mean?
https://www.daybydaycartoon.com/comic/nowhere-man/
What is happening?
https://www.daybydaycartoon.com/comic/just-lie-back/
Stranger is that he seems to have dozens of fans who comment on every post telling him he did a great job, presumably because they understand whatever point he is trying to make and agree with it.
I don’t get it. Am I the crazy one? Please send help.
Re : “I don’t get it. Am I the crazy one? Please send help.”
I can answer that question, but going on and on ad infinitum about a cartoon and the cartoonist actually contains the answer to the question in itself. (Except to the person who poses it, of course.)
A follow up question poses itself — Do crazy people have too much time on their hands or does having too much time on your hands drive a person crazy?
Sending help will achieve nothing. There is no cure for your condition.
Hm. I don’t think finding the time to critically engage with a piece of art–even bad art–is a waste of time. I assume this was posted because Jack or Tina wanted a response to it. If my response is invalid in any way, I’d be interested in hearing why. I think the art is self-evidently bad, and seeing that the guy considers himself a professional cartoonist (when this barely even counts as a cartoon–more like a meme) and that he has a following made me curious about his other work, which I also find bad and weird. But I would be very interested in why other people are seeing something different when they look at it.
By the by, I posted a version of my original comment on the cartoonist’s blog, though I softened some of the language so it read more constructively. The comment was not posted there. Fair enough; not all artists can take criticism, and even though I made every effort to be civil and judge the art rather than the artist, he’s of course under no obligation to post my comment.
I should note that I wrote and illustrated the political cartoons for my high school paper, and put a lot of thought into them, which may be informing the level of scrutiny I’m applying to this one.
No cure, indeed. Day by Day regular readers would know that the lady in the panel above is Samantha (Sam) Owens. She is speaking to her husband Zed who is off screen. Day by Day has been a daily web comic strip since 2002. For those interested (or, a little slow on the uptake) Wiki gives a fair description—
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_by_Day_(webcomic)
You really need to read some of the archives in sequence to get the full depth of the stories and meet all the characters.
Thanks RHT447.
I now recall coming across this cartoon series at some point. I didn’t pursue it because it seemed like I’d entered the theater in the middle of the movie, so to speak. They are more like comic books or those series stories that were popular in the early fifties (and earlier).
Chris Muir’s genius is how his characters act as alter egos and express the world and events as seen through his eyes. He lost his own father recently. He expressed that loss in this panel where Zed loses his father, Wade. The title is “No More Fences”.
https://www.daybydaycartoon.com/comic/no-more-fences/
Having lost my own father, it rather hit home with me.
Wow. My proof reading sure went to he77 on that first sentence.
Your proof ready looks fine to me.
My Dad’s gone too…hit me the same way.
I am truly amazed that this artist has been doing this since 2002 and is still so bad at it. I Googled around and found many others who had the same criticiques I had: lazy art, characters that are just shallow self-inserts, bad composition, incomprehensible jokes, and dialogue that reads like it was written by someone who has never actually heard the English language and is just using Google Translate.
But seriously, the worst thing is that the art is just ugly. I can’t imagine why anyone would think any of these cartoons are pleasing to the eye. There are so many better cartoons out there!
Chris, I guess Muir hasn’t been drawing since 2002 just to satisfy your desire to be pleased.
I find absolutely nothing wrong in the composition in the two panels posted here. Since you took it upon yourself, twice, to “criticique” Muir’s art, why not tell us what you find wrong with his composition. I’d also be interested in knowing what you believe is “lazy” about his work.
In Chris’s world, DBD must be discredited. Why? (With apologies to Jeff Cooper) because he fears and, yes, hates the views put forth in DBD, because they are overwhelmingly “other” than he, and in a way that emphasizes his
afflictions.
As I said, there is no clear relationship among any of the images or text; there is no “flow.” That one side seems to be a photorealistic painting and the other a cartoony image also hurts the composition. It’s done in two different styles that do not gel well together. The woman’s style adds nothing to the piece and just seems to be there for the artist’s own sexual excitement. You also mistook the author’s tone toward the woman; looking over his work, he often uses her as a mouthpiece for his own views, yet you thought he was being critical of her, which means his tone was unclear.
I guess art only makes sense in the eyes of the beholder.
This art is good and typical of today’s style. Not at all warm and fuzzy like early Disney or Warner Bros.
I’d say the football player piece is more of a painting than a cartoon. The Samuel Adams quote is timely and right on the mark. The “protest” is inappropriate to the venue, irreverent for no good reason, and deeply offensive given all this nation offers and all that has been done to address issues from slavery to bigotry and poverty.
Ignorance is on full display here: ignorance of our full history, ignorance of the sacrifices made to secure and keep our freedoms, ignorance about the privilege we all share in being American, ignorance about what is required to be a free citizen, ignorance of the sacrifices made by police officers and their families, and the responsibility that must be born by the black community to make conditions change.
Samuel Adams might have said, ‘Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do,” except he could not get passed the ungrateful posturing and the folly in choosing servitude over freedom. What master do men like Kaepernick serve? The radical left race baiting agitating “revolutionaries” who sold the lies and work to undermine America!
The female drawing on the right is also good…well drawn. It is similar in style to Anime, made popular by Japanese cartoonists. See #24, Berserk; #19, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex; #6 Death Note; #2 Neon Genesis Evangelion. It is also reminiscent of the 70’s Playboy cartoon and the steamy broad in the movie “Who Framed Roger Rabbit.” Don’t blame her, she was, “drawn that way.”
Chris: “The quote condemns people who prefer servitude to freedom and wealth to liberty…but that can’t possibly be applied to the protesting players, who are exercising their freedom of speech and refusing to be compelled to stand for the anthem. ”
Yeah, it’s all about them, right? These very fortunate few who can play football at the professional level and get paid tidy sums (Average $1.5 mil a year) season after season to do so…all made possible because their fellow citizens love football and love to see them play. (Made possible becasue of our free country!!!)
Oh it can be applied. It can be applied in many many ways.
It can also be applied to the dim bulb female. She is clueless even about simple everyday things like the name of pro-football’s final contest. Immediately we can assume she is also as clueless as the players on subjects like patriotism, reverence for the flag and the anthem, respect for those who create these jobs and for those pay to consume the entertainment…among them are the men and women still fighting and dying to protect America and the Western value called “freedom and justice for all.”
Chris maybe you don’t get the cartoon because you don’t fully understand or experience the things I’ve been talking about. It’s typical of younger people generally but of many young people today in particular. Education is inadequate on the one hand and filled with propaganda on the other. The Democrat Party isn’t really a political party so much as a weapon of agitation and disruption and of fundamental transformation of the values and standards that make our country valuable and unique.
The female drawing on the right is also good…well drawn. It is similar in style to Anime, made popular by Japanese cartoonists. See #24, Berserk; #19, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex; #6 Death Note; #2 Neon Genesis Evangelion. It is also reminiscent of the 70’s Playboy cartoon and the steamy broad in the movie “Who Framed Roger Rabbit.” Don’t blame her, she was, “drawn that way.”
Why is she a “steamy broad?” What does that add to the cartoon?
…It can also be applied to the dim bulb female. She is clueless even about simple everyday things like the name of pro-football’s final contest. Immediately we can assume she is also as clueless as the players on subjects like patriotism, reverence for the flag and the anthem, respect for those who create these jobs and for those pay to consume the entertainment…among them are the men and women still fighting and dying to protect America and the Western value called “freedom and justice for all.”
…Well, that is not clear at all. I did not read any criticism of the woman in the dress into this cartoon; I thought we were supposed to admire her for not caring about football. She’s put into contrast with the players who are (apparently) being criticized; I thought the point was that people will stop watching and caring about football due to the players’ protests (but as I said, even this is not clear). If your interpretation is correct then there’s absolutely no reason for the 2018 caption above the woman; if she’s being criticized for being dumb then there’s no reason to specify that this conversation (with an invisible person!) is happening in the future.
The fact that both of us had such wildly different interpretations of what the cartoon even meant indicates it’s a bad political cartoon. The message of a political cartoon is supposed to be clear even if one disagrees with that message. The message of this one is completely muddled and I can only infer the point of it from the contemptuous tone toward the players. The cartoonist’s tone toward the woman is so unclear that I think he’s praising her and you think he’s criticizing her as much as the players (in which case contrasting them makes no sense). But if you look over the artist’s body of work he seems to use this same woman often as a mouthpiece for his own views, so I think my interpretation of his stance toward her is the correct one.
It’s a bad, bad meme, and barely even qualifies as a political cartoon.
Chris you used the words party dress to describe her apparel. I used “steamy broad” because the style is similar to other cartoons I’ve seen: Playboy and Roger Rabbit. I also used “dim bulb” to describe her…”Hey was that Supercup, bowl thingy on this year?” …cause I figured it would push a few old feminists’ buttons and because it’s hard to imagine anyone not knowing its called The Superbowl. LII (52) is coming up on February 4th…a fifty two year old tradition is hard to avoid, especially if there are fans in the house. The 2018 caption is simply a designation of this Superbowl year. (Players weren’t all involved in protest last year…too early for 2019.)
The woman is typical of many women who do not watch or follow football and women do use the term “thingy” quite often.
“The fact that both of us had such wildly different interpretations of what the cartoon even meant indicates it’s a bad political cartoon.
Not to me. To me it illustrates that you don’t get it. You don’t understand this point of view so you can’t relate…it’s “off-putting and incoherent.”
I hope one day you’ll have an epiphany and all will be clear 😉
It has nothing to do with the point of view. I understood that the cartoon was critical of the protesting NFL players, and have found certain objections completely comprehensible. The way this cartoon expressed its point made no sense, which is typical of the artist. It is also ugly, with objectively bad art and composition. It looks like a poor quality meme, not a political cartoon. The artist is a hack.
Chris, when it comes to art or even cartoons, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. undeniably, many beholders thought quite highly of it.
“I understood that the cartoon was critical of the protesting NFL players”
Oh yes?
“If I can play art critic for a moment: I don’t get it. (followed by questions)…The quote condemns people who prefer servitude to freedom and wealth to liberty…but that can’t possibly be applied to the protesting players, who are exercising their freedom of speech and refusing to be compelled to stand for the anthem.”
“Can’t possibly be applied”…sounds to me like you are attempting to get the cartoon through a prism…your point of view. Sounds like you are absolutely certain you know how things are.
Try a bit of curiosity.
The anti-protest position is that the players do not have freedom of speech on the job and that their employers should be able to force them to stand for the anthem. I have seen good arguments for this position. Jack at Ethics Alarms is one who has argued very well for this position, though he has not convinced me. But his argument still has merit.
Saying that the protesting players “prefer servitude to freedom and wealth to liberty” is not a good argument for this position; it is a nonsensical one. It makes no sense. It has no merit.
You are engaging in projection: you are saying that the only reason I don’t like the cartoon is because I don’t agree with it. But this is because the only reason you like the cartoon is because you do agree with it. You don’t objectively analyze the worth of an argument; your only standard, as you have shown before, is whether the argument supports your narrative. Because of this, you can’t imagine that anyone would reason differently; everyone else must just decide whether they like things based on whether it conforms to their preconceived biases, just like you do. So all of the valid critiques I’ve made of this thing as a piece of art are irrelevant, because the cartoon was made by a conservative and I am a liberal, therefore the cartoon is good and you can dismiss everything I say about it without giving it any critical thought.
Re : “I don’t get it. Am I the crazy one? Please send help” … “I don’t think finding the time to critically engage with a piece of art–even bad art–is a waste of time. I assume this was posted because Jack or Tina wanted a response to it. If my response is invalid in any way, I’d be interested in hearing why. I think the art is self-evidently bad, and seeing that the guy considers himself a professional cartoonist (when this barely even counts as a cartoon–more like a meme) ” … and the other blather.
όταν ό δαίμων άνδρη πορσύνῃ κακά
τον νουν εβλαψε πρώτον ώ βουλεύεται.
This conservative also thinks the comic is bad, for many of the same reasons I do:
http://badwebcomicswiki.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Day_by_Day