I actually did draw a cartoon last week, but it’s slated to appear in Dollars and Sense, so I’ll have to wait a few weeks before posting it online.
Anyhow, the cartoon I drew last week (which I haven’t posted) was rather grim, so this week I went for just being silly.
I kinda like how her skirt came out, except in the first panel, but I’m feeling too lazy to redraw that.
I’m trying to do less detailed pencils, instead drawing more in the “ink” stage (“ink” in quotes since I draw the whole thing on computer anyway). Hopefully this leads to a more spontaneous line and a looser feel.
Hayyyyyy, mannnnnn – smoke ’em if you got ’em, right? ;D
I like the attention to her body language – the pigeon toes in panel 2 are a great detail.
Hey, often silly is the best kind of political!
Since you mentioned it’s all done in the computer, what do you use? Tablet and Photoshop? The result sure looks like pen and ink to me.
Thanks, defenestrated. :-) The fun of this sort of layout for me (four tall panels, a full figure in each one) is the chance to play with body language.
Will, nowadays I use a Cintiq, which (for readers who don’t know) is a combination tablet and monitor. And yes, I draw the whole thing in Photoshop. But my drawing style still has that “pen and paper” look to it, probably since that’s how I learned to draw. :-)
Ah, that does look like the digital artist’s dream. May it keep serving you well!
Great, now my wife the graphic artist has a $2500 hardon for this damn thing. THANKS, Amp!
In general, I like this cartoon a lot. But…a first sentence like that can’t come without a “but”, can it? The angst the character expresses feels a lot like what men express when they get into “patriarchy hurts men too” complaints. Yes, it’s true, but it’s also true that your character here didn’t ask to be born rich and her angst, guilt, and remorse are real feelings. The problem in each case is that the complainer is a person who is in a relatively good position to do something about his or her unfair advantage (which is leading to angst, etc) and so the complaint, in the absence of any action to change the situation causing the feelings being complained of, seems a little hollow. Or am I overreading?
Heh…re: Dianne’s comment, having done fundraising for charities around, y’know, the place, talking to a lot of people too busy to hear about the Sudan or dysentery or the sad topic of the day – I’m not sure if I’m sympathetic to or offended by this strip! ;)
And, hey, with the housing market the way it is, pretty soon even the rich will only be able to afford drugs (kidding) (I think).
Robert wrote:
Hey, Mrs. Robert, if you’re reading this, I just want to tell you: The Cintiq is GREAT. It’s even better than you’re imagining. Not only will it make creating on the computer feel much more natural, it’ll also be faster, so you’ll be more productive.
This is just an idle thought, not pertaining to anything, but gosh, any spouse who’d object to their spouse buying a Cintiq would be a bad, bad spouse.
Anyway, have a great day! And if you’re ever in Portland, come over and try my Cintiq. The first puff is free.
Dianne and defenestrated, yeah, I pretty much agree with Dianne’s interpretation of the character (and Dianne, no, I don’t think you’re overreading).
But I don’t really see that as a problem with the strip; it’s not like I’m holding this character up as a role model. :-)
Oh, Amp – know any Reedies? ‘Cause five hundred imaginary dollars says they’re all taking this as a role model ;)
Jesu, I hate being reminded of my teenage self :( I don’t think I was ever quite that eloquent about it, but I did have some resentment around having the kind of money we did. Never did drugs, though — unless you count books, which are sort of like drugs, except they’re reusable.
Eh, maybe this is just me having no sense of humor, but it seems to me that the message of this cartoon is, “Hey, look at the stupid white girl. Isn’t she funny. Aren’t we superior to her.” whereas you are generally more sympathetic to male claims of being hurt by the patriarchy. (And, of course, in the background is the “gee, can’t Amp even draw a funny cartoon without you jumping on his butt about the patriarchy” worry.)
Dianne, I think it’s a matter of axes of oppression. Rich white girl is being silly about her class status, which rich white girls are able to do. That doesn’t inhibit her ability to be oppressed by gender.
I really like this one. Also D, RWG is being silly because she expects not to have any negative feelings about her place in the world. That’s an unrealistic expectation.
Also, it’s a cartoon, lighten up. :)
Dianne, rich people who can’t see that there’s a simple solution to the injustice created by hoarding wealth (share it!) are funny.
Don’t lighten up too much, Dianne. I like people taking cartoons seriously. :-)
As for me being generally sympathetic to male claims of being hurt by the patriarchy, compared to how I treat this character, there are a few issues this brings up.
1) Boys who are bullied, men who are killed at work, and so on actually are harmed by the workings of patriarchy. I do think that’s a more legitimate claim than the claims the character in this comic strip makes to being harmed by her wealthy class status. So in that way, you’re right – I am more sympathetic to those claims.
2) That said, I can actually only think of two cartoons in which I’ve addressed male complaints about sexism (1 2), and both of them were if anything considerably less sympathetic to the male complainer than this cartoon is to the female complainer.
3) This relates to a general contradiction I always face in my cartoons. On the one hand, I have a hesitation to show women, people of color, or fat people as negative characters, because it’s so easy for such negative characterizations to be read as sexist, racist, or anti-fat. (And sometimes that reading would be correct.)
On the other hand, the vast majority of the characters I draw in my political cartoons are negative characters — that’s the nature of the kind of political cartooning I do. So if I make all those characters thin white men, the result will be that I have a universe populated almost entirely by thin white men, which would obviously be problematic.
Here’s my approach nowadays: I feel free to “cast” characters who are women, POC, and/or fat in some of the “negative” roles, but I also try to avoid doing so where the negative traits in question would obviously dovetail with common negative stereotypes about women, POC, and/or fat people. I don’t think this cartoon crossed over that line, but of course you might disagree with me on that.
I also tend to make all of my corporate CEO and Uncle Sam type characters white men, because in real life those sort of powerful decision-making positions are disproportionately given to white men.
In the case of this cartoon, I pretty much made her female because — unlike many other characters — she didn’t have to be male, and so by making her female I avoid the “everyone is male” problem. But I made her white to avoid the racist stereotype that drug users are POC. So that’s why she’s a white woman.
But I made her white to avoid the racist stereotype that drug users are POC.
So basically, stereotypes control your art?
Not intending to snark; I understand your dilemma. But it does seem like your ethics end up handing control over your voice to the people you would consider to be most problematic.
You’re in a pretty fortunate position on this whole thing, being an editorial cartoonist. Since nobody expects you to depict the whole world the way we would if you were writing novels or something, you can pick and choose to avoid stereotypes. Artists who create larger pictures would be in a terrible bind using your system, though. I’d like to write a novel about Leon the black guy with a drug problem, but POC = drug user in the stereotypes, so every novel about Leon is off the table. And so on.
Robert, *all* artists have to be aware of their choices. If you write an SF novel in which red-haired, green-eyed people have magical powers, you’re using a racial metaphor, and you have to think about what the reader might take from that.
Much of the problem that Ampersand and earlier cartoonists like Jules Feiffer have is that you’ve got a tiny amount of space to make a point. And someone who twitches whenever women are characters will be immediately suspicious if you make a woman a brunt of a joke.
But the great cartoonists don’t exclude anyone from any of the roles that humans can take. Silliness comes from the mouths of men, women, blacks, whites, capitalists, communists, theists, atheists, straights, gays, and everyone in-between. Make all your bad people white men, and you’ll never notice what Margaret Thatcher or Condi Rice or Clarence Thomas or Alberto Gonzales have done.
Well, actually Will, you don’t have to do any of that. You can just create art, and let it stand on its own. I understand why an artist might want to do that, or feel a need to do it, or feel that for their art to have integrity and value, they need to do that.
My question to Amp is really trying to get him to explore (or more likely, articulate what he’s already explored internally) how his own boundaries give power to these stereotypes by the very avoidance of them. He’s self-limiting his work; that has implications. Since Amp is one of the artists I most respect, I’m interested to know how he perceives this.
“Robert, *all* artists have to be aware of their choices. If you write an SF novel in which red-haired, green-eyed people have magical powers, you’re using a racial metaphor, and you have to think about what the reader might take from that.”
Shetterly for the win!
(Good to be agreeing with you again, Will.)
Robert, a few lucky people do brilliant work without consciously shaping their art, but most of us have to consider the implications of what we’re doing.
That said, I think you’re right to wonder “how his own boundaries give power to these stereotypes by the very avoidance of them.” I love artists like Lenny Bruce who grab the forbidden and shake it inside out.
But I don’t think it’s fair to compare the considerations you make for a novel with those you make for a four-panel cartoon. In a novel, you have room to make Leon the black drug dealer a human. In a cartoon, you’ve got to expect some people to simply look and say, “It’s a black drug dealer! You’re racist!” I try to just accept that and tell the stories that interest me, but I understand why it makes artists nervous.
Mandolin, if I’d known you were posting that, I wouldn’t have left my follow-up. Thanks!
Robert, I agree with Will that a comparison of political cartoons to novels isn’t very useful, when it comes to the question of avoiding harmful stereotypes. It’s possible for a novel, or any other long-form narrative, to make a character who in a three-word description sounds like a stereotype into a great, non-stereotypical character. But when your narrative is, at most, ten panels long (and usually much less), you don’t have time to add all nuance like that.
So saying “what if a novelist used your system” is a pointless question. Obviously, a novelist wouldn’t approach novel-writing the exact way I approach writing political cartoons, nor would I say they should.
More broadly, I don’t understand how what I’m doing isn’t “just creating art, and letting it stand on its own.” In the long run, most of the people who read my cartoons read them without my explanations; to me, that’s the art standing on its own. I think perhaps you actually mean “just creating the art with no regard for what other people might think, or the social context it’ll be read in.”
Finally, I don’t understand why you say that by avoiding harmful stereotypes I’m reinforcing them. Could you expand your argument?
This makes it sound like I’m operating out of fear of offending oversensitive, overzealous readers. But the truth is, I myself am such a reader. :-) I do what I do because I think it makes me a better cartoonist, not because I think it’s wrong for readers to criticize perceived harmful stereotypes in media.
Actually, quite a few great cartoonists in effect did cartoons that were only about white people, or white people plus a single token black character. It doesn’t mean that they’re not great cartoonists, but in some cases — despite the enormous merit of their work as individual creations — it means they were contributing to a harmful overall pattern.
I’m not sure that criticism is applicable to how I write my cartoons nowadays, Will. I certainly admire other cartoonists’ lampooning those people in their cartoons, but I don’t really do cartoons which focus on individual politicians (regardless of their color). I used to do that stuff, but that was years ago; now I try to do cartoons that are more about general systems of power than about individual miscreants.
Oh, ditto on the “being such a reader”! If ever I’m not writing what I would like to read, I hope I’ll realize it and quit the writing biz.
The last bit was meant as an illustration to say you’re right to make choices like the one here, where you have a rich woman instead of a rich guy, because the world just isn’t tidy.
Robert, I agree with Will that a comparison of political cartoons to novels isn’t very useful, when it comes to the question of avoiding harmful stereotypes.
Why not? I’m asking about the underlying conceptual question. Of course it applies much differently to a novelist; but I’m asking you. (Note emphasis on asking, not telling.) Maybe I shouldn’t have brought up the novelist as a sample.
I think perhaps you actually mean “just creating the art with no regard for what other people might think, or the social context it’ll be read in.”
Yes, that’s what I meant.
Finally, I don’t understand why you say that by avoiding harmful stereotypes I’m reinforcing them. Could you expand your argument?
Well, not reinforcing the stereotypes per se – but having your behavior constrained by them. Isn’t one of the primary evils of stereotypes the fact that they constrain people, put limitations on their options for unjustified reasons? Maybe I should say rather than you strengthening the stereotype, the stereotype is victimizing you.
Although, in your case, the victimization is technically voluntary. You don’t have to be constrained by the stereotypes – you just don’t think that the pain or offense that would be caused as the by-product of that decision are worth the increment in artistic freedom. (I hope I’m reading you right on this one. If I’m wrong, it’s the error of ignorance and not arrogance.)
On behalf of nerdy white Catholic guys whose sensitivities you’ve thus respected, thanks. ;) And I understand and to a degree share the empathic impulse underlying it. On the other hand, I think that as an artist (to the microscopic increment that anything I do is art) I come down more in the direction of erring on the side of a less edited presentation. If I have an inspiration to write a three-panel comic about [oppressed minority] doing [stereotypical behavior or trait], I think I’d do it, if I thought it would be good.
I wonder where artists come down on this.
Our behavior is constrained by the stereotypes anyway. They roll easily to mind for a reason.
Dianne, rich people who can’t see that there’s a simple solution to the injustice created by hoarding wealth (share it!) are funny.
I agree, although doing so forces me to think well of Bill Gates (who is sharing his wealth), which is not the easiest thing in the world.
Of all the possible solutions to the character’s dilemma, the one she picks (continue feeling guilty, do nothing to aleviate the reason for the guilt, take drugs), is probably the worst possible, although “declare greed to be good and try your best to hoard even more” would be a close second.
She could give her money away and go live under a bridge, but frankly, that is rather a self-indulgent solution. Who does it really help in the end?
She could use her money to educate herself about the problems of poverty in the world, pick one or more to work on, and start trying to help the people she’s feeling guilty about. This could involve anything from becoming a social worker to starting a financial organization that gives out microloans to becoming a politician and changing the laws to make them more equitable. Yes, attempts by rich people to help poor people can go drastically wrong too, but they must be better than sitting around angsting over something that you can change.
One reason I felt uncertain about criticizing the cartoon at all is because it is so good: A perfect, succinct demonstration of liberal guilt at its silliest. And I certainly don’t want to detract from Amp’s brilliance in showing that. But the very fact that it was an excellent cartoon led me to want to point out problematic possible readings…Or am I starting to sound like the character in the cartoon…
Don’t lighten up too much, Dianne. I like people taking cartoons seriously. :-)
Be careful what you wish for ;-)…
Boys who are bullied, men who are killed at work, and so on actually are harmed by the workings of patriarchy.
I’m not sure that the patriarchy is always the root cause in these cases (everything from class to neurochemistry can play a role, depending on the specific example*), although the patriarchy definitely twists boys and men in ways that are detrimental to them, leading to their being bullied, hurt, and killed. I don’t mean to belittle that.
I feel free to “cast” characters who are women, POC, and/or fat in some of the “negative” roles, but I also try to avoid doing so where the negative traits in question would obviously dovetail with common negative stereotypes about women, POC, and/or fat people.
I agree. For one thing, portraying women, POC, and/or fat people only as brilliant, beautiful saints while “allowing” white men in your cartoons to have foibles, make mistakes, and be silly sometimes creates the impression that women, POC, fat people, etc are acceptable ONLY if they never make a mistake. Which, of course, leaves out all real women, POC, etc.
I don’t think this cartoon crossed over that line, but of course you might disagree with me on that.
I think that the stereotype of the guilty white liberal leans somewhat more to the guilty white liberal woman, so in that sense it wanders close to the line. However, women, even rich women, usually feel relatively powerless. So a wealthy woman may think that she is powerless to change her situation, or to help anyone, yet at the same time be aware of her position of privilege and feel guilty about it. Therefore, the cartoon “feels” more right to me as it is than when I mentally recast the character as a man. (Oddly enough, when I recast, I also see the cartoon as being much more sympathetic towards the character than I did initially. Some sort of unconsious tendency on my part to be harder on women than on men? Or assumption about your or the world’s tendencies? Not sure what that’s all about…)
Anyway, I hope that my comments are useful to you in some way and didn’t come out as Ampersand bashing. For unrelated reasons** I was feeling rather negative over the past few days and that may have affected my ability to correctly read a cartoon.
*Though isn’t that also true of women’s oppression?
**Including, actually, the possible planned attacks on Iran, but that’s a different rant…
Dianne, like Andrew Carnegie, Gates is giving away money that he will never feel. While he’s arguably better than some who benefit from a horribly corrupt system, what he is doing does not change the system that keeps the rich benefiting from the poor. You do not have to move under a bridge if you want to share your wealth; you only need to take up a simpler, sustainable lifestyle.
But, yes, figuring out what to do that’s truly meaningful is tough.
You do not have to move under a bridge if you want to share your wealth; you only need to take up a simpler, sustainable lifestyle.
Causing a net reduction in economic activity, and making everyone poorer. In practice, sharing the wealth usually means moving everyone closer to zero. It’s fairer! We can all be poor together.
You don’t have to quit creating wealth to share it. Creating wealth is wonderful. Hoarding it is not.
True. Fair enough. ;)
Robert, shortest internet disagreement ever!
No, you’re wrong!
Whew! You’ve restored my faith in the internet!