Cartooning, Caricature, Stereotype

Posted on by

In comments Jeet Heer and Caroline Small call for a consideration of the relationship between cartooning, caricature, and stereotype.

I’m curious what people have to say about this, so I thought I’d give it a thread and see if anyone else wanted to take a whack at it.

My own sense is that cartooning, at least, does not have to involve caricature or stereotyping. Charles Schulz’s work, for example, seems to me to definitely be cartooning, but it doesn’t really involve caricature in any meaningful sense, nor stereotyping. You could say the same of Garfield, probably, or of Tiny Titans, or of Bloom County or Calvin and Hobbes or Doonesbury…any number of things really.

On the other hand, caricature and stereotype seem a lot closer together. I think this has blighted the history of editorial cartooning, in many ways. Despite my love for some practitioners of the form (Art Young, Dr. Seuss), I think you could really argue that it’s main function throughout history has been to deliver disgraceful racist stereotypes to the masses — all the way up to present-day bile pillorying muslims and arabs.

I do think, too, that while they’re not intrinsically linked, caricature has been a historically important part of cartooning — and I think this is probably a significant part of the reason that comics have had such trouble acknowledging and shedding their use of stereotypes. There’s a sense that stereotypes are part of what cartooning is about; that representing a black person as a blackface caricature (as in the work of Crumb or Johnny Ryan) is about being true to comics’ roots. The lack of racial and gender diversity in comics compared to other mediums (like film, or television, or visual art, or most anything, really) hasn’t helped matters.

So that’s my not-especially-well-thought-through two cents. I’d be interested in hearing what other folks have to say if they’d like to chime in.

31 thoughts on “Cartooning, Caricature, Stereotype”

  3. Being fired en masse isn’t helping either. Plus: you know?, “his master’s voice” and all that. We all know who controls information in these wonderful democracies of ours.

  5. I mean…I don’t want anyone to get fired, and god knows that there are more worthless and evil jobs out there. But it’s hard for me to care on an aesthetic level. As an art form it just seems mostly eh.

    I don’t even know that the problem is that the powers that be prevent there from being good editorial cartoons. I think the form is just not so great for expressing subtle or unfamiliar political thoughts, you know?

    Again, there are some folks I like, but it’s pretty slim pickings….

  6. I noticed while in France two years ago that the line of the way popular cartoonists portrayed black people fifty years ago and now was virtually unbroken. I saw contemporary books with blushing oval-lipped African “sambo” characters pretty much everywhere. I feel like Europeans by and large haven’t had to deal with black vs. white race relations in as stark terms as Americans and are perfectly willing to let obscene racial stereotyping in their comics sail over their heads. You wouldn’t believe the level of ease and comfort my British expat boss lets INSANE RACIST SHIT fly out of her mouth.
    Did you see a couple of years ago when Harry Connick Jr. had to school an Australian comedy troupe on the insensitivity of their blackface routine?

  7. Also: I don’t think Editorial cartoons have been culturally relevant since just after they were lampooning Boss Tweed. I remember having to come up with a few as part of my job description of comics editor for my college newspaper. It was an immensely hollow and pointless experience.

  8. Pejorative stereotypes are objectionable. To the extent that a caricature relies upon them, the caricature is objectionable as well. But caricature does not rely inherently on pejorative stereotypes. It relies on exaggeration and even absurdism to make points about its subject that a literal depiction could not. A caricature that, say, identifies Barack Obama with Woody Allen’s Zelig is perfectly fine. That would be quite specific to him. One that plays to racist stereotypes, such as portraying him as a prelapsarian cannibal, is objectionable.

  9. But there’s got to be a huge impulse to go for the prelapsarian cannibal rather than Zelig, because everyone will get the first and the second is fairly abstruse….and, maybe more importantly, the visual cues for the first are an established part of the history of caricature in the way that the visual cues for the second are not….

  10. In comics narrative, you’re dealing with other issues, such as physiognomy as a shortcut to characterization and whatnot. To the degree that cartoonists eschew this, the more sophisticated their work tends to be. They aren’t confined to the single image. As such, more nuanced portrayals should be expected. The difference between a vulgar comic and a reasonably sophisticated one is often in how characterization is handled. If the characterization begins and ends with the immediate visual treatment, it’s usually crap. However, if the immediate visual of a character becomes a signifier for a personality that isn’t directly tied to the character’s conspicuous visual characteristics, you’re probably in the hands of someone who might be worth reading. The Peanuts characters are pretty good examples of the latter.

    With a character like Ebony White, things get really muddy. The visual characterization is based on a disgusting caricature that at its heart says that people of black African descent are innately subhuman. The textual characterization, though, doesn’t reflect this at all. In textual terms, Ebony is actually quite favorably portrayed. (He’s also the only recurring member of The Spirit cast who actually has some dimension as a character.) At worst, I would say that the visual puts an unfortunately patronizing pall on one of the few vital aspects of Eisner’s banal stories.

  15. At the highest level, caricature and stereotype are not only distinct– they are opposed.

    Caricature magnifies the INDIVIDUAL. Stereotype relegates the individual to various mobs.

    Consider the caricatures of Al Hirschfeld or David Levine, for instance.

  16. I don’t think Hirschfeld or Levine were at the level that someone like Brodner is. They were impeccable draftsmen, but their best work is nothing more than eye candy.

    Levine occasionally ventured into political commentary with his art, but he was usually at his worst when he did so. He was not knowledgeable about politics, and his criticisms of political figures rarely got beyond insults. Most of these were quite witless and often completely irrelevant to any substantive critique; he was just insulting people for the sake of insulting them.

    Levine was certainly prone to imagery rooted in pejorative stereotypes. For example, it was not unusual for him to depict figures from rural or Southern backgrounds (such as Carter or Bill Clinton) as hicks and white trash.

  18. ——————–
    Noah Berlatsky says:
    …I don’t even know that the problem is that the powers that be prevent there from being good editorial cartoons. I think the form is just not so great for expressing subtle or unfamiliar political thoughts, you know?
    ———————

    The familiar “single panel” editorial cartoons indeed have a hard time doing that.(Sheesh, they have to even resort to sticking labels on things, or deploying pyramids and Sphinxes to show the subject of the cartoon in question is Egypt.)

    Which is why, for all they lose in iconic power, comic-strip-style editorial cartoons can offer up far more complex arguments; dissect a political strategy more comprehensively…

    ———————–
    Alex Buchet says:
    At the highest level, caricature and stereotype are not only distinct– they are opposed.

    Caricature magnifies the INDIVIDUAL. Stereotype relegates the individual to various mobs.
    ———————–

    Yes, exactly.

    ———————-
    Consider the caricatures of Al Hirschfeld or David Levine, for instance.
    ———————–

    Sammy Davis, Jr. caricatured by Hirschfeld: http://www.artcadeonline.com/art_items/images/200412915213230L.jpg . Definitely a distinct individual rather than a racial “type.”

    However, I’ve seen some old artwork by Hirschfeld which heavily deployed the “coon” imagery. Couldn’t find the sample I was thinking of (featuring a troupe of Ebony-lipped black male dancers), but here’s…

    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DEm5tlqxC3w/S7Cjgo4X0OI/AAAAAAAAO-s/ujZ_0QWJIS8/s1600/pignouf-vintageposter-CabinInTheSky.jpg

    Slightly less stereotypical, an Apollo theater chorus dancer: http://rogallery.com/_RG-Images/Hirschfeld_Al/harlem/Hirschfeld-Harlem_as_seen_by_Hirschfeld-12.jpg

  20. Jeet said this, though:

    Eisner’s racial stereotyping is related to his affinity for caricature and theatricality … more contemporary cartoonists like Spiegelman and Ware tend to eschew the tradition of theatrical histrionic, preferring comics were the range of gestural expression is more muted. And, of course, as Noah says, comics have a long history of this. In part, I’d argue, because their is an affinity between caricature and stereotyping.

    So is the consensus here that there is NOT an affinity, or a complex overlap? I’m still interested in a blow-out of Jeet’s point…

  21. Ok; gotta get ready for work soon, so let me toss out a few ideas.

    Theatrical make-up (unlike the cinematic kind) is frequently highly exaggerated, caricature-like, so that even distant members of the audience can get an idea of what a character is supposed to look like.

    ——————–
    Uses of Greek Drama Masks

    …In ancient Greece, plays were performed during the day, outdoors in large amphitheaters. The bulk of the audience could not see the actors very well, so a mask projected a character to the cheap seats. Furthermore, the masks were highly stylized and exaggerated, so that a villain or lover was easily comprehended, even by the least-educated audience members.

    As liberating as the masks were in allowing actors to slip back and forth through characters and gender, they also presented a great challenge to good performers. Actors spent years learning how to use their bodies to enhance the emotional thrust of a performance and to show the breadth of emotion usually expressed in the face. [Consider the exaggerated body-language Eisner’s characters use in “emoting”…]

    …The mask gave the actors characterizations that were instantly understood…
    ———————-
    Emphasis added; from http://costumes.lovetoknow.com/Greek_Drama_Masks

    Of course, the weirdly contrary part of Eisner’s using theatrical acting tropes, is that comics are a highly intimate medium, where such an approach is hardly necessary.

  22. Mike, those images are kind of amazing. I think they maybe point to what Caro’s talking about; the way the tradition of caricature seems to be informed by stereotype even when individual artists clearly “know better” in some sense. If you can draw Lena Horne without using blackface stereotypes, then obviously you’re able to see at least some black people outside of that stereotype — but there’s still an impulse to use it as as a design element — for humor or because it looks stylish, or whatever….

  23. But isn’t that the challenge for each of us, even outside of art or of discourse? To see the other as an individual, in all his/her quiddity, outside of categories.

    Caro, I think ‘complex overlap’ is an excellent description of the relationship betwwen caricature and stereotype. My contention is that in the hands of its best practitioners, the former actually DESTROYS the latter.

    Robert, your remarks about Hirschfeld and Levine may be on target (I think they aren’t, but that’s an argument for another day.) But I wasn’t speaking of either as commentary cartoonists, but as caricaturists.

    “Eye candy”… you certainly are adept at finding insulting terms to dismiss two of the finest practitioners of their craft, ever.

    It remains that both Hirschfeld and Levine were absolute masters at conveying the essence of a persona in their drawings, and respect should be paid to such skill.

    BTW…to my knowledge, the greatest living caricaturist is the Frenchman Cabu.

  24. @Caro

    I think there’s an overlap, but stereotype should be seen as bad or hackneyed caricature. I’m not inclined to really disagree with Jeet on this matter after reading him. I would note that comics are a development from caricatural drawing, although the better modern graphic novels have largely abandoned caricature as part of their arsenal. It’s a really flawed analogy, but you could compare it to poetry and tragedy developing from the chanting rituals in ancient rites.

    @Alex

    What’s wrong with being eye candy? Most visual art doesn’t even begin to accomplish that much.

    Truth be told, though, I do use expressions like that to put things in their place. A major peeve I have with writing on comics is that technical razzle-dazzle often gets treated like the highest achievement there is in art. You see artists like Eisner or Krigstein or Toth get lionized, but their material is really slight and negligible when you consider it relative to work in other fields. I enjoy Hirschfeld and Levine quite a bit (at least when the latter stays away from political subjects), and I have nothing but respect for their skill, but their work doesn’t really amount to much beyond that.

  25. I once had someone tell me that any work not influenced by caricature and the cartooning tradition indebted to caricature should not be called a comic at all, ever. “Comics” was synonymous to him with caricaturial work; work that moved away from this tradition was “something other than comics” — some form of illustration.

    Obviously I disagree, but I think the relationship among cartooning, caricature, stereotypes and “comics” is definitely a “complex overlap” that deserves better, more thorough theorizing.

    I tend to reject caricature, use it derogatorily, which is why I’m refraining from saying anything of substance here: I want to hear the arguments FOR it.

  26. I’m working on a longer essay on all this, so I’m not really ready to say too much more here but I’ll point out that I’ve written two older essays that touch on this topic: http://sanseverything.wordpress.com/2009/08/11/felix-the-cat-blackface/ and http://sanseverything.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/blackface-as-a-prism-for-seeing-the-world/

    The basic point I’d like to make is that it might make more sense (for analytical purposes) to narrow our focus from racism in general to the more specific issues of blackface & minstrelry in comics. The second point to make is that blackface/minstreltry hasn’t really disappeared and isn’t just of historical interest. Rather, via Felix the Cat and Mickey Mouse, blackface/minstrelry has entered the very fabric of cartooning (and not just in America — I’d argue the Disney style has had a huge impact on manga and European comics). The roundness, cuteness and bounciness of blackface/minstrel figures like Mickey Mouse and Ebony White remains part of the very DNA of global cartooning. The past, as the famous Faulkner quote goes, is not even past.

  30. ———————-
    Noah Berlatsky says:
    … If you can draw Lena Horne without using blackface stereotypes, then obviously you’re able to see at least some black people outside of that stereotype — but there’s still an impulse to use it as as a design element — for humor or because it looks stylish, or whatever…
    ———————-

    Indeed! Or, in the case of some modern European comics creators who delight in peppering their period stories with “coon” depictions of blacks, as an ironic, non-PC “retro” touch. (I’ve got one guy – French, I think – particularly in mind, but can’t remember his name…)

    ———————-
    Robert Stanley Martin says:
    @Caro
    I think there’s an overlap, but stereotype should be seen as bad or hackneyed caricature…
    ———————-

    Which also “de-individualizes” its target; reduces them to a “type”…

    ———————–
    Domingos Isabelinho says:
    Caro: “I tend to reject caricature, use it derogatorily, which is why I’m refraining from saying anything of substance here: I want to hear the arguments FOR it.”

    http://www.gombrich.co.uk/showdoc.php?id=85
    ———————–

    An outstanding link; thank you!

    ———————-
    Robert Stanley Martin says:
    @Alex
    What’s wrong with being eye candy? Most visual art doesn’t even begin to accomplish that much.

    Truth be told, though, I do use expressions like that to put things in their place. A major peeve I have with writing on comics is that technical razzle-dazzle often gets treated like the highest achievement there is in art. You see artists like Eisner or Krigstein or Toth get lionized, but their material is really slight and negligible when you consider it relative to work in other fields. I enjoy Hirschfeld and Levine quite a bit (at least when the latter stays away from political subjects), and I have nothing but respect for their skill, but their work doesn’t really amount to much beyond that.
    ———————-

    Yes. Not that I don’t get far more enjoyment from Hirschfeld than from a more psychologically probing artist (Lucian Freud, say), but neither he nor the technically superb (in his prime) Levine were particularly perceptive. Hirschfeld drew countless stars of highly varied personalities with a limited array of similar rendering schticks. (Was particularly annoyed by his caricature of Joel Grey in “Cabaret” as simply a mincing queen, completely missing out on the sinister aspects of the character: http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/515318 )

    Aside from his felicitous “Vietnam as a scar on LBJ’s belly” cartoon, Levine did nothing much more with his caricatures beyond achieving a splendid likeness. Oy, the innumerable drawings in “The New York Review of Books” of authors with their fingers poised over keyboards! Which tells us that they’re writers, and nothing more. When he tried to do commentary, the results were absurdly simplistic. Kissinger – with fangs, to show he’s evil – schtupping the world, in one…

    Still, though, I’ve argued that a creator can be seriously deficient in important areas (say, complexity or psychological depth) and more than compensate by being brilliant in others.

    ————————
    Jeet Heer says:
    …blackface/minstreltry hasn’t really disappeared and isn’t just of historical interest. Rather, via Felix the Cat and Mickey Mouse, blackface/minstrelry has entered the very fabric of cartooning…
    ————————

    I think its popularity is because – like those ancient theater masks – it enables heightened expressiveness which communicates more clearly. (Top graphic designer Milton Glaser praised the “power of the cliché” because it, like a stereotype rendering, makes use of existing preconceptions in its audience. Same reason Hitchcock preferred using famed names to star in his flicks; the audience brought an array of past associations to the characters, from the stars’ bodies of work.)

    Google’ing “ancient heater masks,” ran across this startling image of a “Theater mask representing an African slave. Terracotta, made in Sicily, ca. 350 BC”:

    http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/LX/Mask_African_BM_1195.html

    “Good Lord! *Choke*!” It’s mind-boggling how painfully timeless this is. While others – http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/Arts/TheaterArt.htm – look weirdly from a different culture, this black chap could have been sculpted in 1930’s America.

Comments are closed.