Well, I don’t think that. I just think there was plenty of context in that picture to figure out who the subject is, and that the artist may be more cartoonist than caricaturist. It should be noted that NONE of the figures in the cartoon are a particularly striking likenesses.
I mean, I’d say that that Naomi Osaka shouldn’t have been “whitewashed” but I can’t imagine what kind of criticism he’d be getting if he tried to be “accurate”.
I’d like to read up on that, given that, aside from the tired and pejorative “they all look alike” joke, face blindness is usually categorized as a cognitive disorder.
As someone who really does have mild prosopagnosia, I’ve long thought of it as a form of “all them people look alike” syndrome that applies even to your own race. Or at least, it’s a good way to explain to people who can’t imagine how one can confuse Sally, Sue, and Samantha when they’re obviously all different.
I’m not seeing monkey at all. Not even the slightest bit. What I *am *seeing is Serena Williams depicted as a toddler having a screaming tantrum. hence the stance, hence the bawling mouth, hence the dummy on the floor nearby.
A well-used Aussie epithet is that someone has “spat the dummy” meaning that they are behaving in a childish manner because something isn’t going their way. I’m not sure how much more obvious the cartoonist needs to make it.
I think you see what you want to see here. Those that want to see black people as monkeys will do so, for this cartoon it never occurred to me for a second. Heck the Obama cartoons I’ve seen have far more of a chimp vibe due to the ears but I don’t hear people worrying about that.
Naah. Nice try, but naah. It’s no more just “an interpretation , by an artist” than the paper’s editorial column is just “a work of literature, by an author”.
Platform matters.
Do you grant there’s a concrete difference between saying “Fire” in your living room, while you’re alone, vs yelling it in a crowded cinema?
Who said anything about worth?
Was she wearing earrings during the match in question? Rhetorical question..
Well, so much for the cartoon being an accurate but caricatured depiction of her at that particular moment in time, then…
As far as whether Osaka is/isnt portrayed as a white woman or as a minority, i find it completely disingenuous for those who say she is being portrayed accurately because of a similarity in skin tone to Serena. You have to look extremely closely and critically to notice a difference in her skin tone and that of the ref’s. His does have a slightly more pinkish hue but that slight difference is more that overshadowed by all the other much less nuanced and less slight differences between Serena and Osaka. Dollars to donuts, if you ask 100 random people unfamiliar with the story what race the girl who reprezents Osaka in the cartoon is, 100/100 people are going to say “white”. In my opinion, the cartoonist only used the fact that Osaka had a blondish pony tail to go “all out white” so that he could fall back on it when (rightly) criticized for “whitewashing”.
that’s precisely what an editorial is. It is a work of literature, on a subject, by an author. I’m not sure what else it *can *be.
how does it matter?
Depending on context and intention there may be but I don’t see the connection to any previous point you were making.
Careful, I’m not talking about value. I’m talking about the regard in which it should be held. And you implied it when you said…
I assume you see it as a lesser form of art, I may well have misinterpreted your comment. Feel free to correct me.
Well, there’s an opinion that tells me it’s not, in fact, stupid, and is, in fact, much more likely to be accurate than it ever was before.
The issue isn’t what’s right or wrong. It’s what we’re collectively willing to tolerate or not.
Sure. That’s why it’s totally cool to depict Jewslike this. Anything else would just be deflection.
I’ll have to check but I don’t think* anybody *claimed the cartoon seemed accurate or realistic. In fact, I don’t think the artist was carefully studying the source materials and sweating about it at ALL. She wasn’t wearing earnings, true. She also didn’t have a pacifier either. Or stomp on her racket. And the ump didn’t really ask Naomi to throw the game. It was wholly exaggerated.
My point is somebody was offended that she was wearing, and I quote “garishly large earrings,” as if that’s yet another racial stereotype, when, in fact, Serena has been known to wear earrings* much larger *than are pictured in the cartoon on many occasions.
In fact, I think he goofed and gave Serena the pearl-type earrings Naomi was wearing. I really don’t think this guy is terribly focused on attention to detail.
If John McEnroe went into politics (christ! we shouldn’t even joke about these things in the current climate) the caricaturists would draw him in tight shorts and sweat band and a wooden wilson racquet would be shoehorned in there somewhere.
Putting big earrings on a Serena Williams caricature is perfectly valid.
I had the word “just” in there for a reason. Works of art can *also *be propaganda, or incitement, or slander, or even hate speech
How does it not?
Gosh, look, I can also play “Questions Only?”
Gosh, could you possibly equivocate any harder?
Really? You don’t see anything analogous between a newspaper and a cinema on one hand, and a living room and a private gallery*, on the other?
You’re wrong. Consider yourself corrected.
I’m not talking about worth, or artistic merit. No form of art is “lesser”** I’m talking about both intent, as well as scope of, the art and its message.
Unless it’s signed “Kinkade”
I think there is an (almost) inherent knee-jerk tendency in this and other similar matters for white people to defensively deny racism before ever actually critically examining the piece in dispute. If I’m honest, I’d have to say I did this to a degree myself. However, many of the comments here made me realize that I was doing this and i went back with a more critical eye and studied the cartoon more carefully. And I have to say that i agree it is racist. It is racist, in part at least, in all the unnecessary elements caricatured racially that had fuck-all to do with the supposed criticisms of Serena that supposedly were the purpose and meaning of the cartoon. As a white person, I wanted to believe it wasn’t racist. Shit, as a person, period, I wanted it not to be racist. But it is to be like an ostrich and stick my head in the sand to believe so in light of what I can now not un-see. I’m not going to speculate as to whether or not the cartoonist intended for this piece to be explicitly racist or whether his subconscious, unchallenged worldviews colored his work. I don’t think that’s really the subject of this thread.
Here, let me help:
It’s difficult to claim with any certainty anything about the artist’s intent in his portrayal of the other player, all we can talk about with confidence is the effect. But I completely agree that you have to be into some high level analysis to discern that the skin pigment of the two players is similar. Anyone who didn’t know who Serena was playing that day would assume that this was a skinny blonde white woman. At the very least, he’s a terrible cartoonist if he intended that to be a portrayal of Naomi.
That is obviously true but “can be” is not “must be”. They can also be exactly what they seem like on the surface or can be be humorous, affectionate, mocking or thought-provoking. I find it odd that you only choose the negative aspects of what art can be
I didn’t understand your point, I asked a question for clarification. If that was *all *I was doing you’d have reason to complain.
I said that intention and context matters. Of course it does. I can give you examples that reverse the implied jeopardy of the examples. You yourself below refer to intent.
That’s fine. Hence the value of asking questions.
I agree fully. So are you willing to accept what the artist themselves says regarding intent?
Which characteristics of Naomi should he have exaggerated to ensure we all know it was her?
Her enormous lips and slanty eyes, of course.
Dammit, you have exposed my hypocrisy with your ingeneous trap.
They can also be uplifting or mundane. I was pointing out the negatives because that’s the category I think this particular racist artwork belongs with.
You needed clarification on why what platform an artwork is disseminated on matters? Really?
I wasn’t complaining. I was Just. Asking Questions.
I clearly laid out the context when I made the analogy. To claim it was unclear or ambiguous would be disingenuous of you.
Ha! Ha! Ha!
No. Not when I have the contradictory evidence of my own eyes, that artist’s previous record on racist cartoons, and the venue of the cartoon.
The question still stands and it is relevant. You can feel free to answer or not.
