The New Yorker caption contest.
I didn’t make the cut, but I still think my entry for Contest #23 was better than any of the three finalists.
My entry:
“It’s just protective coloration. Real Mondrians are toxic to birds.”
Anyone agree?
I like yours.
I liked mine too. Mine was something along the lines of:
I had great luck with that Christo guy, so I figured this was worth a shot.
Biff, regarding your proposed caption: that’s a joke, right?
Wait, no, I really meant, it wasn’t a joke, right?
Wait… oh, crap.
I didn’t think your cation was funny, if it really was intended to be. There.
“You see, I believe in Intelligent Design.”
Yes…but is it art?
That’s a Ziggy!
Well… Your response managed to get me to smirk when I read it. Not a full smile, mind you, but a positive response.
The first (kids) was New Yorker humor, but still stupid enough that I groaned. The second (Soup Can) made me want to defenestrate whoever wrote that, and was significantly worse than the uncaptioned comic. The third one- (It’s not traditional…) is less New Yorker humor than yours but, IMO, funnier, and was able to get chuckle while I rolled my eyes.
Is flatulence humor appropriate for the New Yorker? If so, I’m a lock for the #25 prize.
Sorry, I don’t see a joke in your caption. Yes, it’s a Mondrian. Yes, butterflies often employ protective mimicry. “Real Mondrians are toxic to birds?” Uh… that’s not really funny, it’s just a poor attempt to connect two rather obvious things. I’d pick the one about attracting more mature females – though there are no real knee-slappers anywhere in evidence.
Sorry to be critical – especially since the best that I’ve got is “It’s not unusual at all. I am a lepid-Op-ter, after all.” (Even if Mondrian was properly classified as an “Op” artist, instead of frequently miscategorized as such, I wouldn’t feel “robbed” if that clunker was passed over.)
I’m sorry to say I prefer the three finalists.
“But how will we raise the kids?”
That’s a finalist? Egad, Steve’s son at The Sneeze could do better than that.
Hey, that gives me an idea…
I liked the kids line best but I think yours was better than the other two.
I submitted one for #25.
“We met at the the wet bar.”
Not overly funny, but if you’ve been following the contest, you’’ get the nod.
I don’t think any of the 3 finalists or yours is funny.
The ‘more mature female’ one was almost funny but ultimately I’m left completely unsatisfied.
Isn’t The New Yorker notorious for having the unfunniest cartoons on the planet?
I think the Family Circus is considered a laugh riot compared to the humor-defying waste of ink on cartoons in The New Yorker.
That said, I did like your caption - but the editors were probably afraid someone might chuckle and come out of their coma while reading the magazine.
At least The New Yorker doesn’t stoop to glurge. And no, they’re not always unfunny. They’re usually weird and vaguely absurd, but they can be funny.
As a matter of fact, the New Yorker is well known for being highly selective and consistently containing the highest quality cartooning.
They have several compilations, so presumably they sell well.
Tell us, just what thrill-inducing, riotous periodicals are you reading that have you declaring the New Yorker to be coma-inducing and humor-defying. I’d be interested in reading one of them.
I like yours best, Biffy, but what can I say; I enjoy Darwinistic humor.
Soup can runs a close second.
I liked the soup can one best, but that’s not really saying a hell of a lot. Sorry, Biff.
I am certainly not the first, nor the last person to note that their cartoons are usually dull.Here is one person who agrees with me.
But what one person finds unfunny, the other finds hilarious - hence Pauly Shore films and Carrot Top.
I still think 98.5% of all the cartoons in The New Yorker are about as funny as reading the Congressional Register, but different strokes…
Didn’t mean to rain on anybody’s parade, and did find the OP’s caption good.