This would have been at leastthe third cover R. Crumb would have done for The New Yorker, in addition to several extensive features that have shown up between the covers - for example, they had a several page preview of Crumb’s illustratedBook of Genesis a couple years back. So, The New Yorker appears to be very familiar with Crumb’s style, and felt it complemented their magazine previously.
As to the idea that the cover is “too ambiguous” for The New Yorker, this is a magazine that markets itself as created by and for leftist intellectuals. To the extent that New Yorker covers are about branding the magazine, an image that requires some effort to interpret and contextualize would seem to serve their ends. Certainly, they’ve chased that dragon in the past. I mean, what clear and unambiguous message is communicated by this cover?
That said, they’re free to reject any cover they want, for any reason they want, but it seems to me that basic professional courtesy would involve contacting Crumb and explaining why they’re rejecting the cover, or at least *telling *him they’re rejecting it. Arguably, an offense all the more egregious, considering the status of the artist they were jerking around.
Actually no. In the article relating Crumb’s reaction he says that the couple is very intentionally sexually ambiguous.
Can you clarify the genders of the people on the cover, or is that giving away some sort of secret? The verdict isn’t in; that’s the whole point. Banning gay marriage is ridiculous because how are you supposed to tell what fucking gender anybody is if they’re bending it around? It could be anything—a she-male marrying a transsexual, or what the hell.
This is the only logical interpretation of the piece, given the context as a New Yorker cover.
I had no idea who R. Crumb is, or what his political views are, but I do know what the New Yorker is, and if I saw that piece on its cover the interpretation by Chronos above is the only one that makes sense.
On a more general note, it’s a wonder that society functions at all, given that there are intelligent people that interpret that cover as anti gay marriage.
There’s a good chance that the point you are making is going right whoosh past my head. But you said: No matter how you define gender, that’s a picture of an opposite sex couple getting hitched.
As far as I can tell there is no evidence of the biological gender of the cartoon characters. Crumb says that’s one of his points. Hence there is no evidence that the couple is “opposite sex”. Could you please elaborate on your statement a mite?
Anyone who is familiar with Crumb’s work knows that he’s not throwing stones at anyone elses sexuality, as his own is pretty outré, with his obsession with powerful women who could easily snap his scrawny frame in two. The thing is, he has no fear of drawing upon his id, things that most other artists would be ashamed to admit they think, let alone draw. And it’s not as if he’s about the money. He turned down offers for animated films and Toyota wanting to base an ad campaign on “Keep On Truckin’”. Reportedly, the only way to get him to work these days is to offer him a particularly rare 78, or a piggyback ride from a very strong woman.
There’s a fair bit of evidence for the biological gender of both characters: the character in the skirt is taller, has a broad jaw and very masculine musculature. The character in the suit is small, slight, with feminine features. That’s all evidence, just not proof: obviously, its entirely possible that the character in the skirt is a CIS-gendered woman with some very unfortunate genetics, or the character in the suit is a young-looking eighteen year old boy. Were this a real couple I’d met in real life, I’d be less likely to make assumptions about gender, but since this is a work of art, I’m willing to do so to find an interpretation of the work that I find to be the most interesting/amusing/aesthetically pleasing. I think the cover works best as a representation of either a cis-gendered, crossdressing couple, or a pair of transsexuals, each transitioning in an opposite direction.
As a rule, artist intent is not a factor in my interpretation or estimation of a work of art. Although, since you brought it up, I’ll point out that artistic ambiguity is an invitation to audience interpretation. Pointing out that Crumb deliberately left the gender of the characters ambiguous does not contradict my reading of the cover.
Which is not the same thing as: No matter how you define gender, that’s a picture of an opposite sex couple getting hitched. I’d say, that that is a comment that calls for an “IMO”, rather than assuming that the reader will realize you’re not attempting to state an objective fact.
Crumb’s style is pretty damn well known; if you’re commissioning a cover from him, you have an idea what you’re getting. Besides, he’s done lots of work for the New Yorker in the past, so they clearly know his work. The cover in question is not all that weird, racy, or explicitly sexual, frankly, compared to lots of Crumb’s work.
Are they hetero? I can see a case for either gender for either character.
