The power we wield...

[cartoonchaos]

Has everyone heard about the 12 political cartoons that have caused riots throughout the Muslim world? The caricatures depict the prophet Mohammed wearing a bomb shaped turban with a lit fuse and such...

There are thousands of people rioting in the streets and burning flags and embassies.

There are many times throughout history when cartoons and animation have swayed public emotions and caused public unrest, and in this case, flag burning riots and death threats. This is a sobering example of the power we wield as artists.

What do you think is more important? Global freedom of speech and artistic freedom? or maintaining a level of respect for religious beliefs, especially those of a part of the world with an escalating temperature of violence?

[kdiddy13]

What a tricky subject. I'm all for freedom of speech. I'm also all for taking responsibility for that freedom. I don't think that those cartoons were good or bad, just opinions. Unfortunately, there are people who will not be able to take criticism in any form, no matter the justification of it.

On the other hand, freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from responsibility. Just because it can be said, doesn't mean it needs to be said.

Tricky. There's not likely to be a black or white answer for this one...

[Harvey Human]

I was wondering if this topic was going to make it on here.
It's not an animation topic, but whatever.
Political topics are usually frowned on here.

This news item has nothing to do with the imagined power of animators or illustrators. It's about the power of the press, and the stupidity of religion.

[kdiddy13]

Originally Posted by Harvey Human

.....
Political topics are usually frowned on here.

..... the stupidity of religion.

Political topics are usually frowned on because blanket comments like these usually make the political debates less debate and more from the hip name calling.

[NOOB!]

it is a toughy yes.

but Topics like Religion and Racism ALWAYS are difficult,no matter how much you sugar coat your opinion some one will always get offended.

I can't really answer the question,its too hard..reminds me algerbra.

[Harvey Human]

Originally Posted by kdiddy13

Political topics are usually frowned on because blanket comments like these usually make the political debates less debate and more from the hip name calling.

Today a Muslim mob burned down the Danish consulate in Beirut because of some doodles in a newspaper.
I'm sure the mob sees that as a righteous and intelligent act. You're welcome to share their opinion.
I call it stupidity.

[Bioptix]

This will be a very touchy subject, so I'll tread lightly here.

I'm not sure if it is the artists who wield this power, or the newspapers that commission and distribute the images. Of course an artist can decide whether he takes a commission or not but at the end of the day it only takes one artist to accept the job, and let's be honest not many artists out there are in a position to reject a brief from their employer and expect to retain the good favour of the company.
One of the many sad facts in this case is that the newspaper in question has now sacked the artist responsible for the cartoons as a result of the reaction in the muslim world. I find this highly hypocritical considering they were the ones who specifically asked for these cartoons of the prophet to be created for publication in their paper. There was a documentary a couple of months ago on German TV all about these cartoons (it was shown before all the trouble began) it showed an interview with this artist and he made it very clear even then that his drawings did not reflect his own personal political or religious views, he was simply doing the job he'd been asked to by the paper.

Anyone is free to draw any image they choose (freedom of artistic expression) however, once an image is published and distributed in the national/international press the image may become used as a political tool. These images were published for political reasons and we are now seeing the political backlash of this. Freedom of speech is all very well but when you use it as a justification for insult and desicration of the religion and cultural indentity of an international faith, it is foolishness not to expect an angry reaction. These images were published at a very unstable point in our global history. People of the muslim faith already feel victimised and demonised by western actions since 9/11. In no way do the political actions of terrorists reflect the true message of Islam, which is peaceful. By depicting the Prophet Mohammed (a blasphemous action in itself) as a terrorist and a pig etc in the western press, there is no telling of the damage that may have been done to the already unstable climate and the common views held by (usually) peacefull law abiding muslims in relation to the western attitude towards their faith.

Freedom of speech is of utmost importance but its responsible and respectful use must be even more so, especially in an escalating temperature of violence.

[Harvey Human]

Originally Posted by Bioptix

Freedom of speech is of utmost importance but its responsible and respectful use must be even more so

I disagree.
If we were to follow your rule, we would be obliterating satire.
In some countries, satirizing political or religious figures and institutions will get you thrown in jail. In the middle ages, satirizing Christianity would get you put to death. That's not stupid? That's not evil?

[cartoonchaos]

Originally Posted by Harvey Human

It's not an animation topic, but whatever.
Political topics are usually frowned on here.

This news item has nothing to do with the imagined power of animators or illustrators. It's about the power of the press, and the stupidity of religion.

I dunno Harvey, I think anytime that art motivates this kind of global response, I think it concerns all artists, including us, political or not.

I don't know if its about the power of the press... Think about all the newspapers that condemn terrorism and connect that to "jihadism" (if that's a word). It was the graven image of Mohammed that caused all this, and in the form of a cartoon making light of him. I think it's about the power of that image, and its implications toward religion.

[Ken Davis]

There is no such thing as freedom of speech and there never really has been.

I say that because one cannot express onself to an audience in ANY country on Earth without REPERCUSSIONS , thus one is not privileged to speak in a truly free manner.
If one is alone then the "right" exists because there's no audience, and the self-expression becomes essentially impotent.
If someone utters the word "bomb" in a public place, then they can not only be censured but arrested for implied threats.
That is not free speech, that is restricted speech.

Self-expression without responsibility is reckless.

As for the power we wield, I'm inclined to agree to a certain respect.
One can draw a unflattering caricature of anyone and cause them embarrassment and humilty. All humour entails someone or something being victimized to some degree.
Pointed message though do have their value, as criticism via parody or satire.
The weight of the message though needs to be measured based on the degree of upset it will cause.
Like a comedian telling a joke, a cartoonist has to weight in just how MANY people might take offense.
One cannot effectively measure tolerance, so gauging the reaction of people is hit and miss.

This doesn't mean a cartoonist should abstain from expression though.
No guts equals no glory and the path to glory is oft strewn with guts.
Looks like this is one of those cases in Denmark.