As a crass cartoonist myself since 1951 when I drew my first political cartoons, I can find a rationale in making cartoons... They are not designed to prevent anyone using a gun... Er, Yes, they are... Well, not really. They mocked people with guns... I often try to stop people thinking that guns are the panacea to solving problems. And other conundrum.

Here is an article by Helen Razer published in Crikey and my comments after that.

by Helen Razer
When Peter Cook opened comedy club The Establishment, he was asked by press to describe the entertainment Londoners could expect. He said he would take inspiration from the satirical Berlin cabarets of the 1930s that had done “so much to stop the rise of Adolf Hitler and prevent the Second World War”.

Cook, a truly great vulgarian with a lifelong commitment to taking a shit on everything, knew the power of satire. Which is to say, ineffective against bullets. He would not have proposed satire as a useful measure against the killers of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists but perhaps would have poked a little fun at The Guardian’s Suzanne Moore, who yesterday enjoined us all to “ridicule” these gunmen. “They fear laughter,” she said. Which is probably not terribly true, but, even if it is, certainly not as true as the fact of their fear of Kalashnikov malfunction.

Laughter may be the best medicine yet concocted by citizens of liberal democracies to soothe the pain of knowing that not everyone in the world enjoys their cultural and material comforts. That doesn’t mean it’s an especially potent one. Yet, every other person with a smartphone connected to a Western network seems today to disagree with Cook and with history as they transmit their belief that a war can be resolved with good jokes.

Today, apparently, we are all Charlie and today, we are all circulating some optimistically dreadful cartoons whose crude self-importance rivals some of the worst printed in that publication. Dave Brown of The Independent gives us a disembodied middle finger rising from the cover of a bloodied magazine. Dutch cartoonist Ruben L. Oppenheimer offers up a pair of pencils refigured as the twin towers. The most popular cartoon, initially attributed to Banksy, is the work of Lucille Clerc and here again, the joyful war of the cartoonist on terror is affirmed as we see pencils cruelly broken and then resharpened to document another day.

The message is clear and as unified as the #JeSuisCharlie hashtag that appends it: the civilised people of Paris find creative ways to settle disputes. Well, that is, apart from the Terrors. And the May riot of 1968. And the June Rebellion of 1832. And the Paris Commune. And the Resistance of 1944.

I’m not strong on history but I am reasonably sure that there has been little effective recourse in statecraft to jokes. It is, of course, a lovely idealism that replaces weapons with works of art and if territorial claims could be settled with skill, then the Reichskulturkammer would have come a very distant second to the so-called “degenerate” painting of pre-war Germany.

That cartoons can seem to provoke offence that mutates into brutal violence is not evidence “they fear laughter” and it is certainly not evidence that this laughter is any kind of panacea, despite what a posthumously reposted Christopher Hitchens might have to say on the matter in Slate. And this planned atrocity in Paris is not even evidence of an attack on freedom of expression. It is evidence of war.

We are at war. Of course, it’s a disordered, post-modern war with all the focus of a puppy in a pile of turds. The ongoing conflict between the illiberal East and the “civilised” West makes Vietnam seem like a game of checkers and many of its manoeuvres and players on both sides are illicit, concealed and unwillingly detained in battle.

It’s not just “them” opposing “our way of life” and refusing to sort out their problems in the fashion of Paris intellectuals. One does not simply hold up an art nouveau mirror to a pseudo-soldier whose family has been minced by Lockheed Martin and say “this is the way we do things in the West” with any hope of success. Militant Islamists don’t become militant Islamists because they have no good cartoonists. They become militant Islamists because they have their cultural and social roots in nations where pencils are even harder to come by than clean water.

Let it be plainly said for anyone who might mistake an impatience for righteous idealism with an endorsement of violence: shooting people is terrible. But what is also terrible in its foolishness is to elevate art or satire to a false state of moral primacy. We cannot go to war and endorse, as we explicitly do, the physical destruction of cultural institutions in Arab and Gulf States and then be surprised by retaliation. “How could they do this?” we ask, apparently amnesic that we did it first and better.

Let it also be plainly said that as a professional ratbag myself, I feel very keenly for the slaughtered cartoonists. I know it’s an extraordinary privilege to live in a nation where I can freely commit a thought like “your soft hypocritical faux liberalism and broken pencil symbolism disgusts me” to public expression and be paid for it with no expectation that you will do anything more violent to me than bitch on Facebook.

But, like Peter Cook, I know that this expression is every bit as powerful as Weimar cabaret. Art, satire and journalism do not win battles. At the very best, they can describe those battles in terms we can understand. And I’d have to say, the cartoonist’s art of recent hours is failing on that score. When all we have to recount what may or may not turn out to be the latest conflagration in a 30-year war is a bunch of images that say nothing other than how the production of a bunch of images is somehow a proof of freedom in the West, we might want to rethink what we are doing with our much-vaunted freedom of expression.

We don’t need to use art to tell ourselves that murder is morally wrong. But, nor should we use art to remind us — as though we needed reminding — that what we are doing to Islamic nations is somehow morally right. And I say this not only because I happen to believe that what we are doing in Islamic nations is morally wrong but because I believe that art has no real business upholding the self-confidence of the culture.

Of course, art can do whatever it pleases and I will defend to the (metaphoric, let’s be honest) death its right to displease me. But I will not pretend that the art of the Charlie Hedbo or that which commemorates it was produced free of agenda or context. It was a servant to ruling interests and so, even less empowered to end a war than Peter Cook’s delightful cabaret.



http://dailyreview.crikey.com.au/razer-je-ne-suis-pas-charlie/17180

--------------------------------

Gus: very well written, Miss Razer... And to the point. A certain point... But what's the point?... The point is that NO-ONE in adulthood should fear cartoons. Or a drawing. Or a word.

As a crass cartoonist myself since 1951 when I drew my first political cartoons, I can find a rationale in making cartoons... They are not designed to prevent anyone using a gun... Er, Yes, they are... Well, not really. They mocked people with guns... I try to stop people thinking that guns are the panacea to solving problems. And other conundrum.

Most cartoons, political cartoons included, are designed to give us short-cuts to our personal and social idiosyncrasies, with a twist — or a double self-negating twist.

Some satirists get paid. I don't. I'm sort of resigned to being on the scrap heap of "retirement"... Not a retirement village idiot yet, but.

Do we, cartoonists, hate the police? To a point, but not always and there are caveats... Do we hate religion? A cartoonist should... Well, not hate, but a cartoonist should show the quirky hypocritical idiotic side-effects of beliefs... Do we hate politicians? Of course... Some politicians more than others — all in proportion to the harm they do to the social fabric and to the environment. Most of the populations around the world have massive broad shoulders to cope with these political idiots.

We enjoy a good laugh: "rire est le propre de l'homme" (« Mieulx est de ris que de larmes escripre,

Pour ce que rire est le propre de l'homme. " Laughter is the essense of being human)

— Rabelais, Gargantua)

Fair enough...

George Grosz is my favourite cartoonist... Bruce Petty comes a close second. Or vice versa... But Grosz had to flee from Germany I guess because...

Well, let's say here, that cartoons are only relatively influential IF THEY ARE PUBLISHED. Often, even when published, the scale of influence is very limited... A cartoonist, despite being a shy person, should be addicted to publishing FAR and WIDE, but it is a major struggle, even with the internet. The concept of cartooning is not everyone's cup of tea. There are some people out there who would not hurt a fly and do find cartooning "offensive" or unfunny, though they have a loaded gun by the bed-side.

There is no point doing cartoons that are not seen by anyone. Though this could be called self-therapy, especially for those who were (or are) interned in mental asylums or exhibited at the Musée de L'Art Brut in Lausanne, the scope of achieving better personal satisfaction is limited. One can become bitter. Most of us have the addiction to being appreciated by someone — or at least the street stray cat — even if one is not a cartoonist.

Being ignored is a curse.

Authorities work hard to make sure some cartoons don't reach the greater public. Well, actually, newspaper editors make sure the cartoons are "decent" and do not offend any section of the community — apart from gently molesting politicians... In Australia, and many other countries, politicians are fair game, mostly because they sell crap... In some countries, cartoonists are not allowed to attack politicians nor royals. In most countries, "ethnic communities" are protected from being subjected to the ridicule of cartoons or words. Hence, "anti-discrimination" laws which make it hard for a cartoonist to fly under the radar. Except in France to a point...

Hara-Kiri (un rat qui rit?) was a publication that did not take any prisoners. No mercy. It became a journal of torture for the set-in-concrete mind of the "bourgeoisie" that eventually made sure the government of the day canned the "degrading" publication. Straight away HK became Charlie Hebdo (hebdomadaire = weekly). The same old juvenile cartoonists carried on as if nothing had happened — desecrating everything. Jean "Cabu" Cabut, 76, Georges Wolinski, 80, and Philippe Honore, 73 way passed retirement as well, were still contributing their acidic sub-university prank-style to CH, when they were shot. Sad. Martyrs to the crayon...

Not so strangely before that, the magazine CH was struggling financially. The satirists were still pissing off a few people — including intellectuals and religious extremists — though possibly, to the general public, the magazine was getting tired and irrelevant. The general public had matured into becoming more bourgeois if this feat was ever possible. That is one reason, apart from the habit of denigrating everything in its path, Charlie was always on the lookout to find new ways to shock someone and try to find a dart that would burst this bourgeois bubble...

But the carapace of the bourgeoisie was getting thicker and thicker, while communities were getting more and more pissed off, though eventually, Charlie's venom would be less and less "seen" at large. Charlie had less and less readers ready to cope with the vitriol and the sale price, as the cost of publishing was going up. Paying premium prices for satire is a bit much... Was Charlie Hebdo on the way out by natural attrition? Were there more distractions pulling people away from being bombarded with bitter satire? Like buying a new lounge suit with florals or stripes?

Grosz had a clear understanding of what he saw.

My Drawings expressed my despair, hate and disillusionment, I drew drunkards; puking men; men with clenched fists cursing at the moon. ... I drew a man, face filled with fright, washing blood from his hands ... I drew lonely little men fleeing madly through empty streets. I drew a cross-section of tenement house: through one window could be seen a man attacking his wife; through another, two people making love; from a third hung a suicide with body covered by swarming flies. I drew soldiers without noses; war cripples with crustacean-like steel arms; two medical soldiers putting a violent infantryman into a strait-jacket made of a horse blanket ... I drew a skeleton dressed as a recruit being examined for military duty. I also wrote poetry. — Grosz

So is the vitriol worth it? Are we or are we not with Charlie? That is not the question. The real question is that in most of our social interactions we are framed. Communism is not the flavour of the month, is it? Despite the dwindling number of Christians in France, the country is still imbued in Catholic fervour. Most French people are still in fear of god, in one way or another. They have not understood Sartre nor Camus... Some clever intellectuals in France still have a problem in accepting the concept of global warming. We are being framed to be consumers. We are consumers of plastic sets of aligned behaviour. We rarely think for ourselves. We do things because "it's the norm" within the box. The cage... It has NOTHING TO DO with being human.

One of the creator of Hara-Kiri and cartoonist that stirred most cleverly, was Jean-Marc Reiser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Marc_Reiser). Reiser did not stop at political cartoons... He made some of the most brilliant drawings that would make you laugh from morning to dusk as long as you were not Catholic, not woman or not anyone — nor even beasts of burden. His publications are raw, fleshy, bloodied and succinct to the point. And this is the point. Reiser used our secret human pissy nature to insult who we thought (or think) we were (we are). Brilliant.

And this is the point of cartooning. By-passing our beliefs and show how they make us be beasts of burden for a system — be it religious or capitalistic. We have become what we believe rather than be what we should be — or could be. We are indoctrinated into various variants of illusions that are like chitinous carapace on our psyche. Semitransparent but impermeable to new ideas, unless they are floral or stripey in accordance with the choice offered by the system at Ikea for the right price we are often told we can afford. The mind is well fed with illusions that drives our singular performance and focus.

Each and everyone of us have a particular psyche. And groups of us tend to share the method in transmission of these illusions. From the time we are born, we believe in Santa Claus, in Jesus Christ, In Jehovah, in Allah or in Vishnu. Actually we do not believe. We are made to believe. Our mind is manipulated to believe. Our social network makes sure we are well-trained in the verses of what we "need" to believe in, so we can fit in the social structure as retained in the illusions of "traditions". And this indoctrination can be made very extreme by simple repetitions. We stone those who stray away from the thinking. We are not allowed to display blue spots when everyone else has red spots.

Cartooning allows us to change our spots. Charlie Hebdo was still trying to do this and by doing so it was "offending" some people who actually never understood how they got the red spots in the first place. Most of the spots in our psyche are culturally unimportant except in the sauce of the culture. They are not hereditary and are not defining of our human nature...

Do we need to change spots? Some people want to retain the red spots. It's easy. It's comfortable. Changing spot is hard and demands thinking... Some people get in a rut and become preachers to make other people stay in the loop of red spot.

Changing spots demands some nifty change. So why change spots? To better understand nature. Changing spots demands understanding the illusionary function of our beliefs from outside those beliefs — into a new set of spots but better still, into a more natural realisation of humanity, with less crap and silly rituals, and more embracing of trees for no reason — if you see what I mean.

WE may not be Charlie, but hell, don't we need people like the CH team to make us change spots...  There could be a price to pay. We could become less tolerant of people with red spots. Red spots are annoying because they are limited in colour but numerous in spread. Boring and lacking imagination. No adventure. Some people loves limits and slippers. It prevents us from thinking for ourselves. We accept the red spots without knowing why we have them. Because we have been brainwashed: the red spots are the spots to believe in because, because, because... We screw ourselves and screw others to accept red spots at the point of a gun. Evolution has never happened.

With beliefs, we are killing the main side of our human nature — that side which is more curious and more positively aggressive without destroying something. We become negatively aggressive and seek guns to defend idiocy. we resent those who try to reduce our number of spots and they resent us, because we are different. In the end, beliefs are far more powerful than cartoons or guns. Yet beliefs are illusions that can have less influence on cartoons and more influence on guns.

Contrarily to Miss Razer, I think WE need to Be Charlie whether we like it or not, relatively for a while. We need to change spots and ponder. The sad death of the CH cartoonists and satirists has made a crack in the concrete slab of the bourgeoisie... It should stay open for a moment, so we can peer at the heart of all of us... Bugger the cartoons... The only thing that matter is our humanly togetherness.

Meanwhile, it has to be recognised, that Muslim extremists target and kill far more "moderate" Muslims than they kill "extreme" cartoonists. Our thoughts have to be with all those who are victims of intransigence that has been expressed with bullets, bombs and mines. Victims of our intransigence included.

Gus Leonisky

Your local cartoonist...