« Crucial Business News | Home | Churchill Once Sneezed, And It Was a Quote »

Sunday, January 22, 2006

The Anatomy of an Editorial Cartoon

Gregory Pence is a Dartmouth ‘06 and a rising editorial cartoonist. His work now appears regularly in the Union Leader, New Hampshire’s largest newspaper. It finds its way into 81,000 homes on Sundays, carrying within those gray pages Gregory’s commentary on the national and state political pasture. Of course, all politics is local. In the midst of Dartmouth’s own God and Man contretemps (For the unitiated, the story is that an intrepid Student Assembly president invoked his savior during a Convocation address. He was thereupon inserted into a maelstrom of offense-taking. The first resignation-in-protest came the day after, and indignant editorials continued apace until enough folks realized that no one actually had transmogrified into a devout Christian during the five-minute speech.) Gregory published a witty cartoon in the Dartmouth Review, with an enormous “Christ Unwelcome” banner flapping from atop Baker Tower and Jesus Christ observing the din on a bed of clouds, with Buddha at his right hand. “Sucks to be you, dude,” the bald Gautama quips.

He is a keen observer of hypocrisy. But these Pence toons are actually all over the political map. Recently taken up was the topic of civil liberties versus national security. Naturally, they wrestle. Gregory was kind enough to send me four cartoons on the topic: a rough draft, and three finished pieces from each of three political positions. The man who commissioned the works was an eighteenth century German count named Franz Walsegg-Stuppach, who wanted to impress his dallying wife with his artistic acumen and so ordered of Gregory these works, to be airbrushed with his name at a later time. Or Dartmouth animation and film professor David Ehrlich. I forget. Either way, I have permission to publish these cartoons from the artist and owner. Seeing the same cartoonist construct three different pieces on the same topic, from three standpoints, is really an edifying experience. Not only for my meager acuity in the visual arts, but to understand message and framing. I’ll share these three cartoons with you, as well as the rough draft.

THE DRAFT: Taking up the issue of security, Gregory knew it would stand in opposition to at least some slice of privacy. More importantly—and this is where the beauty of these cartoons becomes clear—there was a fatcat booker in the dark corner of the room. He’s terrorism, and all our thumbs are his should the wrong fighter win (or the right fighter win by the wrong spread). The first concept was to put the two in the ring for a old fashioned Grecian game. Terrorism is the obscure man with a boxy weapon of mass destruction, traipsing past the unaware and warring ideals. Here’s the sketch. Gregory writes, “Unfortunately, I decided to have both Uncle Sams wrestling. This is pretty hard to draw without inferring gay sex. So what happened, after two roughs, I decided to switch wrestling to boxing.”

THE LEFT: And so, refining the idea, the gloves go on. Gregory produced three final versions of the cartoon. Here’s the view from the left. The flour-and-eggs base, the pencil sketch, remains, but on top of it are placed bold lines and different gradients for the crowd and the Uncle Sams. From the liberal viewpoint, National Security chokes Civil Liberties as Terrorism watches over, in doomy satisfaction. This is what he wants. This is a coherent and understandable position. Left unexplained (by both the cartoon and civil liberty demagogues on the left) is how a breakdown of such protections at the admitted bolstering of defensive and offensive ability is considered by Islamists to be a positive return. Depicted here is a zero-sum game, with a clear aggressor—the long arm of National Security—and a victim—Civil Liberties.

THE CENTER: The moderate view shows an exhausted National Security in fisticuffs with an equally sapped Civil Liberties. It brings to mind the final, dragging, dwindling moments of a boxing match. The fighters are dry and look near death. But the punches, ever weaker and slower, keep flying, and the viewer begins to wonder why. The passion is gone, the fight is gone. But the clock, reminding them that this is their job, ticks on. And so here are two personified pillars in contest. While they fight and a roaring crowd looks on, Terrorism slips by in the shadows. This is the centrist view: the futility and fatality of infighting while a foreign enemy, a real and deadly one, lurks. There is undoubtedly a debate to be had about balancing the two demands of security and privacy. But, this cartoon says, it can be had later. [Later, the Union Leader decided to print this cartoon.]

THE RIGHT: In the final rendition, Gregory illustrates the conservative point of view. Here, the most emotionally complex graphic, a determined and ready Terrorism clad in black trenchcoat holds an explosive charge with detonator in hand. The threat is highest here. Civil Liberties, wearing blue jeans, suddenly tackles National Security. The attacker is glancing over his shoulder at Terrorism. His expression is obscure: Does he see Terrorism and is he knowingly giving it harbor? Or is he surprised that his lofty offensive at National Security has let loose this bigger threat? No matter what Civil Liberties thinks, National Security’s expression is crystal clear: He sees Terrorism, and is stunned that his team has just blitzed its own quarterback. This could be a too-stark view of things. What is fascinating is the sudden lack of a crowd. The moderate sees this as an undue spectacle. The liberal as a Thunderdome attack on privacy. The conservative sees no roaring crowd. It’s more a street mugging. It’s more real.

Each cartoon, viewed on its own, convinces beyond any doubt that Gregory holds that position to the absolute exclusion of the other two. Yet his one hand crafted all three. Congratulations to Gregory for doing such an excellent and intelligent job on these, and my thanks again for allowing them to be published here.

Posted on January 22, 2006 03:30 PM. Permalink