Dee Savoy

Not since Miller’s great taste/less filling debate have folks seemed equally and vociferously divided over a popular image.

Enter Barry Blitt’s controversial cover for the July 21 edition of the New Yorker magazine. According to a poll I saw on my local news 47% of those polled thought it was satire; 48% thought it was racist drivel. At the very best, whatever you call it, the use of the artwork was ill-advised. I’d rather not get into the worst.

In the picture, Obama is dressed in traditional African garb; Michelle is tricked out a la Angela Davis–all while a flag burns in the Oval office fireplace and Bin Ladin’s picture hangs on the wall.

Leaving aside the intention of the artist and the magazine for a moment, what I want to know is why it didn’t occur to anyone that such a cover would blow up in their faces. Was there no voice of reason to say, hey, maybe these images might be misconstrued whatever our intent?

Guess not. The New Yorker tends to thrive on controversy, annoying liberals and conservatives almost equally. But a note to the folks at the New Yorker–it ain’t satire if folks don’t find it funny. The point of satire is to expose the absurd. It’s not satire if what you appear to be exposing is character not caricature. Captioning the piece The Politics of Fear doesn’t change the fact that the cover more likely reinforced detractors views of the Obamas as being militant, Muslim extremists rather than ridiculing them.

Now that’s funny, and not in a ha ha sort of way.

To read more go here.

On a more positive note, at least it beats this–