The Stupidity of Charlie Hebdo

Whose expense, obi?

What I am saying on this thread comes with no 'cost' of any kind to any other person on the planet.

I don't think it's about people; I think it's about the effect of earthquakes on people.

I don't think many people have understood that. Which is fine. They don't have to. I understand it.

So although it's a horrible image, I don't object to it on moral grounds.

People do gawp at tragedies.

Reality.

That is a statement of fact as I see it, not a judgment about what people do.

Like most satire it's vile hurtful mindless and cruel. What sort of person could laugh or even snigger at the portrayal of something so dreadful? Quite beyond belief. Presumably the appalling murders of their own staff should have been satirised in, let's say, Private Eye, to give us all a good chuckle?!

Why does everyone assume the cartoon is provoke sniggering or laughter? I thought the fact that cartoons are not always for that kind of 'amusement' had been covered already in this thread. I don't think it is to provoke sniggering or laughter. I think it's just a depiction of something that has happened. People read into it their own emotions; they cannot assume the artist's emotions were/are the same. It could have been drawn merely as a 'depiction' without emotional baggage. There have been plenty of photos of tragedies that are just as horrible to look at.

I think the artist has just connected two Italian things (earthquake and food) and drawn a picture of which other people can make what they want. As they have done.

My interpretation is valid whether anyone else has the same interpretation or not, just as my (or anyone else's) interpretation of any other human creative endeavour is valid.

People disagree about what art of all kinds, including disgusting art, is 'about'.

Big deal. Not.

I'm puzzled about why people who feel antipathy towards the Charlie Hebdo publication look at it. Is it just so they can pontificate?

The definition of satire - and I believe Charlie Hebdo is considered to be, and considers itself to be, a satirical magazine - is:

"the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."

So satire has a serious purpose and often uses shocking and controversial images to bring home its message. But what is the artist trying to expose here - what is the message? I don't think there is one - it is just a shocking, horrible image that has absolutely no purpose, other than to disgust and shock.

Yes exactly Eloethan! I thought cartoons, like art and literature, were supposed to make a point. Try as I might, I just can't see the point here. What actually is the cartoonist trying to say? Photos of disasters engender pity or horror so causing some sort of reaction towards victims or perpetrators. 'Catharsis' the ancient Greeks called it. How exactly is the portrayal of people crushed in a collapsed building and labelled 'lasagne' supposed to do this? To me it just causes a feeling of disgust and disbelief at the mind of the cartoonist.

Could the 'cartoon' be meant to expose all that people really care about when talking about Italy.

I read an article in The Times just after the earthquake happened. It was lamenting the loss of a family, friends of the journalist, who were staying in their rather grand holiday home in the area. It was all about these wealthy holiday makers and how they were a loss to society. No mention at all of the ordinary people, the full-time residents who lost lives/property in the tragedy. It was just so elitist.

To you thatbags, it doesnt matter if it was your brother's leg sticking out of the lasagne.

What if it matters to other people, [if it was their brother's leg[shudders] sticking out], which going by this thread it does?

And you dont think that the artist, none of them at Charlie Hebdo,are drawing with any negative emotion.

I think I might have cracked it.

If I'm right, it is a cartoon.

Ah jbf you might have a point there! I hadn't seen it like that. Having looked again, you might be right.

I wish I'd thought of that before I started a thread slagging it off!

I was thinking along the same lines, jingl (after quite a bit of head scratching.) but you've explained it far better than I could have done.

I kept thinking, There HAS to be a message here somewhere.

I couldn't believe they would just put out a nasty drawing with no meaning behind it. #lightbulbmoment

You are saying that the cartoonists dont mean to hurt anyone's emotions?

But that would mean not taking any responsibility when they do.

The problem is your eyes are drawn to the 'lasagne' I couldn't see the connection with the first two drawings to begin with.

obieone, people's feelings are their own responsibility.

So how does that fit in with say the Shrewsbury thread, where one person managed to stop the dancers in case some people were getting hurt.

That's what happens when people aren't allowed to take responsibility for their own feelings/reactions. And of course the authorities were scared stiff of being labelled 'racist'.

So that are you saying that person A, in this case the cartoonist and whoever at Charlie Hebdo should be allowed to draw their cartoons, and the people at the receiving end of them have to put up with it? Their feelings are irrelevant?

I think the Charlie Hebdo people are actually speaking up for the poorer people living in the region obi. The people that have lived there for generations.

They are mocking what they suggest may be the superficial sympathy of the wealthier holiday makers, and perhaps the rest of the world in general. We, as 'ordinary' people really feel for the local population, but many of the wealthier types, the cartoon suggests, are simply thinking of what it means to them themselves.

Whether this is fair or not, I don't know. Certainly seemed that way in the Times article I mentioned.

It was a very dangerous cartoon to publish. Perhaps too dangerous.