Foto: © Anke Illing
Mittwoch, 15. Februar 2006
Innocent carricatures
urmila, 00:31h
In Germany we also have a small carricature crisis. To criticise the deployment of the German army during the football world championship following carricature was posted:
Which reads: "The reason why during the championship ... the army has to be deployed."
The carricaturist Klaus Stuttman now claims that this carricature is not about 'Muslims' at all but just commenting on a domestic issue. (And that is in fact what most 'Germans' including me see on the first glance.) He is surprised that he has received massive hate mails and that the Iranian Embassy has interferred.
With the following carricature he depicts himself as the innocent carricaturist who is hit by unforeseen reactions:
which reads: "Carricaturist - in - the age - of - the internet - and of - globalisation"
I find it quite surprising that he could not foresee the reactions. The world is 'burning' in reaction to the Mohammed carricatures published by Jyllands-Posten and this carricaturist does not know he is moving in a sensitvie area? This would be dangerous ignorance.
But if one reads his explanation of what is happening and looks at older carricatures drawn by him, then one notices that he does not seem to have any sensitiveness towards 'Muslim' feelings, the feelings of the 'othered'. He merely considers the whole issue to be one of misunderstandings and different senses of humour.
The problem I see is that he repeatedly uses 'Islamic' images as a metaphor for something negative when commenting on domestic issues which are not related to 'Islam' at all. He does not seem to understand that this usage is problematic even when he does not directly carricature 'Islam' in his work.
Which reads: "The reason why during the championship ... the army has to be deployed."
The carricaturist Klaus Stuttman now claims that this carricature is not about 'Muslims' at all but just commenting on a domestic issue. (And that is in fact what most 'Germans' including me see on the first glance.) He is surprised that he has received massive hate mails and that the Iranian Embassy has interferred.
With the following carricature he depicts himself as the innocent carricaturist who is hit by unforeseen reactions:
which reads: "Carricaturist - in - the age - of - the internet - and of - globalisation"
I find it quite surprising that he could not foresee the reactions. The world is 'burning' in reaction to the Mohammed carricatures published by Jyllands-Posten and this carricaturist does not know he is moving in a sensitvie area? This would be dangerous ignorance.
But if one reads his explanation of what is happening and looks at older carricatures drawn by him, then one notices that he does not seem to have any sensitiveness towards 'Muslim' feelings, the feelings of the 'othered'. He merely considers the whole issue to be one of misunderstandings and different senses of humour.
The problem I see is that he repeatedly uses 'Islamic' images as a metaphor for something negative when commenting on domestic issues which are not related to 'Islam' at all. He does not seem to understand that this usage is problematic even when he does not directly carricature 'Islam' in his work.
... comment
kyla,
Mittwoch, 15. Februar 2006, 15:29
Amazing
I laughed at the second one, it's true. It was cute and I understood the consternation. But I do find it truly amazing that he doesn't get the point. Or refuses to get the point? Maybe. Maybe it's just habit, to think of Muslim images as stock villain images, just a standard. Like how in Disney cartoons, the villains always have British accents if they're intelligent and Black American accents if they are less intelligent (see Lion King for prime example).
Meanwhile, all day in university, I've been hearing the news of this or that building, this or that school, this or that restaurant burning. And then no, it's not burning. And then, yes, it is. And now it's 6:40 pm and I haven't left yet because I figure whatever is burning, whoever is rioting, they'll all go home for dinner after dark.
It's not dangerous. But it feels dangerous. Does that make sense?
Meanwhile, all day in university, I've been hearing the news of this or that building, this or that school, this or that restaurant burning. And then no, it's not burning. And then, yes, it is. And now it's 6:40 pm and I haven't left yet because I figure whatever is burning, whoever is rioting, they'll all go home for dinner after dark.
It's not dangerous. But it feels dangerous. Does that make sense?
... link
... comment
