The Stupidity of Charlie Hebdo

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

If I'm right, it is a cartoon.

I think I might have cracked it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?!

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

People do gawp at tragedies.

Reality.

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.

It is like gawping at tragedies.

Do you like tackling ideas at other peoples' expense?
Do you like tackling ideas at other peoples' loss?

For your own ammusement

You speak as if arguing for the sake of it is a wrong thing to do, eloethan. I call it tackling ideas that I'm uncomforatble with. I like challenging ideas and think it's a good thing to do.

I still don't think the cartoon is about people except indirectly. I think it's about the effect of an earthquake on people: reducing them to a messy mush, so to speak. Which is exactly what earthquakes do. Yes, I am being blunt. I don't think it's a step too far.

Earthquakes hurt real people. Cartoons don't. Bombs hurt real people. Drawings, cartoon or otherwise, of bombs don't. And so on, ad nauseam.

Sadly that is the Charlie Hebdo function, to oppose ordinary feeling and emotion, is it good to be challenged like this ? Makes us think doesn't it. Maybe this is a step too far.

thatbags I think you just argue for the sake of arguing.

I know. I don't really understand why anybody doesn't understand that it's about very 'real' people.

Well, put it this way, if someone had drawn this type of cartoon to depict my brother's injuries, it wouldn't have made the slightest impression compared with seeing The Real Thing and sitting through three and a half weeks of coma and all the subsequent not quite total recovery and the long-term effects of such horrendous injuries as he had. It's just unimportant by comparison.

G'night, folks

The italian ones are about real earthquake survivors. And those that did not survive, looking at the lasagne one.

I think it's incredibly cruel (my opinion). I'm not taking it personally, because I don't have family of friends who were crushed to death in the Italian earthquake.

I dont think cartoonists get their kicks from mocking a plate of pasta personally.

You think that the italian ones are mocking now?

I get that not all cartoons mock.

I think there is a tendency to take things personally which are not meant personally. That's not a criticism, just an observation.

I don't think it is cruel. I think it is very weird and it is not to my taste but I don't think it is mocking people. Italian food maybe but not people and it is most certainly not directed at anyone's particular relatives. It is not 'about' anyone real.

I don't agree that all cartoon type drawings are mocking. CH omes may be but certainly not all. That's what I was getting at when I was talking about people not always getting cartoons. The cartoon drawing style is not just used for mocking.