Did Johnny Hart dis Islam?

[DecafSilicon]

I'm a mild fan of Johnny Hart (B.C. creator), mostly because I'm a Christian. That may have clouded my judgment, but I don't think this -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2184-2003Nov20.html -- is true.

Says that the Nov. 10 B.C. strip was a veiled insult to Muslims. What's weird is that 5 big-time Sunday cartoonists agreed. Only Garry Trudeau stood up for him.

Then semiotician Marshall Blonsky said that Hart could have unconsciously added the message. Ludicrous, I say! Time for a poll!

[ragtag]

The arguments there are about as stupid as when people were seeing phalic symbols all over Disney's The Little Mermaid. Arguing that people don't SLAM the door after them when they enter an outhouse is stupid. Cartoon characters, stone age people at that, SLAM all doors they walk through. The word SLAM being put in vertically as the "I" in Islam, is an obvious practical layout thing. The moon in the sky, and the moon on the door, are just a nice visual connection. And that the strip doesn't have an obvious point or gag, doesn't mean you need to invent one. It just is what it is.

Blonsky's Intentional Fallacy is a bag of bolonies. Of course it's important what the artist intended. Sentences like: " All that matters in artistic criticism, he said, is the effect of the art on its viewers: the way people interpret it. " just don't make any sense. Because no work of art will have the exact same effect on all viewers, or any two viewers for that matter. So which viewers interpretation do you pick, the critics, the average man on the streets or your mothers? The only solid ground you have to go by is the artists intent.

So my vote is a big NO (and here's a quote for you all)

"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

Cheers,

Ragnar

[Greg Stephens]

I voted no because I think think this is a case of some people seeing something that, while may be present, isn't what Hart intended. Therefore, the strip could be read as a slam against Islam, but I doubt that was Hart's intent. Especially since he denys it, the answer to the question is, "no, Johnny Hart did not dis Islam." A less black and white question is, "is the B.C. strip in question an insult to Islam?" And my answer to that is... possibly.

If the Blonsky quote is exactly as given (I was unable to find it, but I only did one quick Google, which is clearly not enough for serious searches, but suffices for this discussion- Hey, at least I tried), then it is cleary wrong, not for any deep philosophical reason, but because of the use of the phrase "all that matters." Clearly, that is not all that matters. It is certainly a large consideration, but it is not all that matters. I would also take issue with Ragtag's reply that "the only solid ground you have to go by is the artist's intent," because it has been proven time and again that the artist's intent may not reflect what the art itself has to say. Both positions are stated as absolutes in a field which cannot rely on absolutes.

I think the meanings, messages, intents and effects of art lie somewhere between the artists intent, what that intent creates, the effect on the audience and the interaction of the audience amongst itself in raction to the art as well as their interaction with the artist. It's all worth discussing as criticism and all contributes to the value of an artwork. It's why it's worth discussing. If all that mattered was the audience reaction, then it wouldn't be art, but something more like advertising. Conversely, if all that mattered was the artist's intent, then an audience isn't necessary. Where art really happens is in the conversation between the work, the creator and the audience.
_________________
Good morning! That's a nice tnetennba.

[ragtag]

Ok, I can agree with that, that both the artists intent and the viewers reaction are important (it's just more fun beeing a little bombastic in your arguments ). I think I was trying to point out that the artist has one intent when he creates the work, while interpretations of the work will vary depending on the viewer. Of course, if you're going to interpret or criticise a work in the first place, all you have to go by are your own feelings and knowledge, as well as whatever the artist may have said about it (true of false). So it's not exactly an exact science, or like you said "Both positions are stated as absolutes in a field which cannot rely on absolutes. "

As for the Blonsy quote, it can be found at the bottom of the second page of the aritcle DecafSilicon linked to.

Cheers,

Ragnar

[Doc MacDougal]

I dunno. I think that the artist's intention, while often very helpful in informing our analysis of a text, is often a red herring. How the work resonates in the cultural web of meaning that surrounds it generally strikes me as a more important factor.

Maybe whether an author meant to be racist or not is a slightly different case, though.

[Surlyben]

Here's the link to the cartoon (which will probably expire in a few days)
http://www.comics.com/creators/bc/archive/bc-20031110.html

When I first read it, I saw it as a commentary against islamic fundamentalists, and islam by extension, and not a terribly subtle one either. I honestly don't see what else it could possibly mean. That Johnny Hart denies it later leaves me scratching my head and wondering if he would deny that the sky is blue. It's not surprising that he would deny it, since some papers would drop him if his comic became controversial.

Hart has a long history of religious commentary in his strip, and while I regularly find it offensive, I don't begruge him his right to be a bit of a nutjob. Cartoonists have a long history of that kind of thing. His strips are at their most interesting when they are at their most offensive.

Yes, if I were editing a Newspaper comics page I would consider pulling B.C., but not because of it's religious themes. More from it's tired jokes (which is why the 'duh, I'm a really bad cartoonist defense holds any water at all') The religious idiosyncracies are a reason I would keep it over, say, a Lockhorns, or the hated Cathy.

The point is, look at the cartoon. What else could it mean? Yes, artists intent matters, but it is also incumbent upon the artist to consider his audience. For example, I like the way fire looks. I like the way crosses look. Does this mean I could paint a burning cross with innocent intent and everyone would have to be cool with it? Of course it doesn't. I (unlike mr. Hart, I guess) am aware that symbols have meaning beyond what I assign to them, and claiming that "I just like crosses and I like fire too, so don't anyone get offended," would be pathetic.
_________________
--
www.surlyben.com Recipes for the apocalypse...

[DecafSilicon]

We're covering well-trod ground, only applying it to a new form: Literary criticism has fleshed out the theories of artist's intent vs. cultural readings. The upshot is that we have scads of information to consult when deciding this.

Has Hart ever criticized a religion before? Seemed to me his approach was always and only a positive statement on Christianity.

[William G]

Well, if he isn't attacking
i
S
L
A
M

...then has mastered the ability of making a comic that only "looks" like he's slamming Islam. Which could explain how he was able to make a strip that only "looked" like he was slamming jews.

So, as well as committing numerous crimes against comics, he's also the unluckiest dope who insulted the followers of two religions by accident.
_________________
Her lips are devil red, she's the color of mocha...

[Kris Lachowski]

I've only read about 50 or so B.C. comics so clearly I am not much of a fan nor a very good judge of this guys past comics, but I think this comic is the only B.C. comic that I have ever read that has been in any way clever and funny. I would applaud him for it if he wasn't such a mediocre cartoonist most of the time. If he is indeed the religious nut people say he is what else do people expect? Of course he's going to put down other's beliefs and claim his own to be superior. I have a number of comics and other works of art that seek to show my position as an atheist superior to the majority of the population's position of being invisible man fearers. Expressing one's beliefs is a fundamental aspect of art, or should be anyway.
Anyway my vote is yes and I'd like to see B.C. kicked out of the paper in favor of something more routinely offensive/entertaining like Jack Chick.

[Greg Stephens]

The whole argument about the meaning of the strip comes down to the question of the "slam" panel and if it was intended to represent "Islam." I really don't think this was on Johnny Hart's mind, but is pure onomatopoeia.

In fact, in an interview I turned up using Google, Hart says:

[Fat Head]

B.C. has to be controversial or people wont read it. It's a dumb cartoon.

[Ben Sutter]

Read some old B.C, if you can. No religion, no god jokes, no bad taste. The blatent bash of Judaism, and this (I feel) bash on another unlucky religion is very offensive. It's not just these two controversial comics, either. His extreme preference of his own theology is sickening, not for his beliefs, but for the beliefs he seems to throw on others.
_________________
I've decided that signatures are redundant.

[kaos_de_moria]

hmm... let's assume it is about islam. even if it is about isam it's an intresting question which is nearly not dicussed in the west.

is it the caveman interpretation of islam (e.g. taliban) which is the problem, or does the isam itself come in a way that produces these caveman interpretations.

if it means islam, that's probaby what 'Is it just me, or does it stink in here?' shall say.

so i it mans islam it poses an intresting, necessary question, which in itself does not attack muslims, but will have to be answered to make any dialog possible.

but i mean. maybe it is just about a caveman in a toilet. let's be honest, many musims think cocacola read the other way arond (the writing on the bottle) means no mohammad, no mekka in arabic letters. this is as stupid as the KKK story about marlboro.

so whatever he meant, it's an intresting strip. if anyone still has got it, please put it onine for me to downoad.
thanks.

kaos

PS: why do i say, it is a non discussed question. because everyone just assumes one or the other, without n unbiased analyses of the 'facts'.
PPS: i don't have an answer to the proposed question. i hope it's just the caveman who stinks.

[kaos_de_moria]

PLEEEEAAAASE!

would be happy if you could pass it over... thanks...

kaos
_________________

[shadefell]

[Greg Stephens]

For those who haven't seen the comic, you can find it reprinted on this page, along with a dicussion of the issue (which I haven't read).
_________________
Good morning! That's a nice tnetennba.

[kaos_de_moria]

thanks for the link to the cartoon...
i expected something different.
i think the style is quite poor and the so called cave man... i can't recognize him as such.

kaos
_________________