Not sure myself, I can see arguments on both sides.
Was R. Crumb’s New Yorker Cover on Gay Marriage Worthy of Rejection?
I would say:
-
I wouldn’t reject this on content or political merit but
-
It’s not clear what the point is, and I would reject it on that merit.
-
I would want to know why it was rejected and/or what image was chose in its place.
Well personally I think the emphasis that Crumb is making is fairly clear. He is presenting a specific take on one one aspect of how Gay marriage might present itself and the man on the streets (ie the clerk’s) reaction to it.
As to why it was rejected, it’s fairly clear IMO
1: The brutally masculine transsexual - not gay friendly
2: The worried and fearful look on the clerk’s face - not gay friendly
3: “Gender Inspection” sign- Not gay friendly
None of this is unclear or big mystery, it’s VERY clear.
Taken all together it was IMO, a fairly deliberate lampooning of the wish of gays to get married. But that’s his style when engaging all manner of social trends and mores and has been for decades. He’s not a “friendly” or respectful artist to any specific group. Women in particular have a bone to pick with him WRT how he has portrayed them.
I’m not sure what the New Yorker was looking for if they engaged him to do a cover in the first place. It’s not like his artistic sensibilities are a big mystery. He has a point that rejecting him without an explanation was kind of a pussy move by the New Yorker.
The point of the cartoon isn’t clear. Crumb has a point about being wanted tp be treated correctly, though. No big deal either way.
Crumb is as much a national treasure as Norman Rockwell was. The New Yorker may put whatever is wants on it’s cover, but Crumb does deserve an explanation.
I think Norman Rockwell’s gay marriage cover would have been better than Crumb’s.
I agree. Love Crumb, love the New Yorker and sorry to hear of the rift. The cover is only meh as a cover (I prefer Barry Blitt’s provocative covers to this one) but Crumb deserves to be treated with respect…
That’s a terrible thing to say! Oh, wait–did you mean that as a *compliment? *
Harvey Pekar once said of Crumb that it’s a mistake to attribute liberal motives to his illiberal images. I have to side with the editor on this one.
Without the “Gender Inspection” sign, this might have made a fine New Yorker cover.
I think it is a shame, as Crumb has done excellent covers for the New Yorker before, as well as wonderful long pieces inside, like Our Beloved Tape Dispenser. I’m sorry to see him losing a well-paid and highly visible platform, but then this is the guy who refused a 6 figure payment from Toyota for “Keep On Trucken’”.
By the way, the “Bride” was no more “brutally masculine” than Crumb’s “Devil Girl”.
Who’s work did they go with then? Something by S. Clay Wilson?
I completely disagree with this (respectfully) - I do not think the cover is meant to be demeaning to homosexuals and in fact supports their wish to marry by showcasing how absurd the government is in limiting marriage to arbitrary gender/biological boundaries.
I think the point is that gender is subjective, yet the government forces people to be one clearly defined gender due to biology in order to grant them the right to marry. If a butch woman and a femme man want to get married (which is what I took the picture to be - perhaps it is supposed to be ambiguous), is that “gay marriage”? Why should the government care?
I can see why people would misinterpret this, and perhaps the editor thought the accusations of offense would be more trouble than the dialogue it might inspire. I am a big fan of R. Crumb in general and gender studies, so my opinion is colored by this. Reading people’s comments here and at the original article has been interesting.
I agree that if the editor usually gives a reason for rejecting work, he should have extended that courtesy to Crumb, even if it was “Your point was not clear/We think this is offensive.” They lost a great talent.
I tried to make that interpretation work, but it doesn’t. Maybe if he’d had the couple at “gender inspection” before they could get the marriage license and maybe if the couple was a little less stereotypical, it would make sense as a critique of the government rather than a joke about the coupel getting married. But between that and Crumb’s established views on the topic, I think you’re wrong about who he was making fun of. The New Yorker should have just said no and given him a clear reason since it’s not exactly a mystery why they rejected this cover. I do think he would have complained just as much if they’d done that, but I’m not a fan anyway.
It looks and reads as more appropriate for Mad magazine. I agree with the New Yorker, but wouldn’t have left it as a simple rejection. Even though the artist is well-known, they could have worked together to produce an illustration with which both would have been pleased.
I ran across something from “The Life and Times of R. Crumb” published in 1998:
[QUOTE=Jay Kinny]
Of course, no genius is perfect, and Crumb has, at times, been his own worst enemy. As a magazine publisher, I would hesitate to give him a cover assignment unless I were prepared to accept a design from him which seem guaranteed to kill newsstand sales. Art which springs from his own enthusiasms and motivations can be exquisite, but catch him in a contrary mood (or make him an offer he can’t refuse) and Lord knows what you’ll get. Crumb is fully capable of taking the worst stereotypes and pushing them to such an extreme that they implode into ridiculousness. However, that can be a joke that not everyone gets and it has earned him his fair share of censure over the years.
[/QUOTE]
Is anyone surprised?
I like it.
That drawin is awesome and perfect, The New Yorker is run by uptight morons just like any institution. Truth if a major institution like that accepts something expressive, it’s probably not worth having been made in the first place. He should take it as high praise and be reminded not to work for places like that again if he cares about anything but money (which is fine too).
It’s clear that it makes fun of the whole issue. Marriage should be between a person and a person and their personal cult leader and thats that. The government sanctioning your marriage? I don’t want them sanctioning my right to fish, why would I want them involved in what midget porn star I want to marry for the honeymoon sex and then divorce?
I knew something was wrong, but I couldn’t put my finger on it. Then I read the article comments. This is typical R. Crumb – beefy, full-figured women, nervous male – this is too R. Crumb. I can appreciate and enjoy the irreverence, but, its not for the cover. Interior article picture maybe, I’d chuckle and go, “Oh wow, an R. Crumb” and start reading the article. But as a cover, it sells R. Crumb, not The New Yorker.
I haven’t heard Crumb’s established views, but when I saw the cartoon, Time Stranger’s interpretation was mine too – it seemed obvious to me that any cartoon with a “gender inspection” sign at a marriage license bureau must be criticizing the government’s position, not the couple getting married. (I assumed the gender inspection was something that had to be completed before the clerk would issue the license, also.)
However, if his established views are contrary to this, it could well change my opinion.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/covers/2009
Nothing here looks like an alternate take on the theme.
Wrong year?
Totally a question of, from my vantage, six of one half dozen of another.
Is Remnick blindered and power-mad? I don’t know.
Do I really need to know above? No (at least, I don’t need to know yet).
Does any of this hurt Crumb, or TNY, or me? No.
Did I ultimately get to see the rejected cover? Yes.
My take on it was that, if we’re going to prohibit gay marriage, then the logical implication is that when a couple of nonobvious gender presents themselves to be married, some government official would need to have the job of performing an inspection to determine that they are in fact one of each. It’s a reductio ad absurdem, and thus supportive of allowing gay marriage (so the government would have no need to know or care what the peoples’ genders were).