CSotD: Without a Trace
Skip to comments
Two threads in this particular Juxtaposition: The backgrounder is the current dustup in the UK about Boris Johnson locking everyone down and then allowing his own staff to hold a Christmas party last year at 10 Downing Street.
It was revealed, apparently, in a wonderfully foolish cock-up when the Prime Minister’s new PR person was trained with a mock press conference in which staffers, posing as media, hilariously asked her about the party. The problem was that, as much fun as they were having, the thing was being taped and so, as such things do, it fell into the hands of the for-real media.
There followed a series of evasions, prevarications and outright bloody lies, which has brought Johnson and his government to the brink of ruin.
The British seem to have an appetite for watching their politicians go down in comical flames and the cartoonists are having a field day.
But that’s not the point here.
These two cartoons, rather, provide a good starting point for discussing the issue brought up by David Apatoff of cartoonists who trace or even photocopy their subjects. DD Degg cited the article, but was discreet in not showing the examples. I think the original article, however, is worth seeing in its entirety and this is definitely a time when you should read the comments.
It’s not a new topic and I’d heard it simmering for weeks before Apatoff brought it up. And, several years before that, it was mentioned at the Daily Cartoonist in relation to a no-longer-available interview with Edward Sorell, of which all that’s left is
“If you don’t trace, it’s art. If you trace, it’s illustration,” says Sorel. “For me, working direct is fine art, and tracing is commercial art. That’s the difference.”
Which brings us back to Banx and Dr. Macleod, neither of whom traced a photo of Boris Johnson for their cartoons, and neither of whom needed to.
Granted, the challenge in caricaturing Johnson is making the hair look sufficiently insane. Having just come through four years of a president who spent an absurd amount of time making his hair look just-so, it’s quite a change.
Though Dave Brown always managed to depict Trump’s hair without having to trace photos.
Still, in comparing those two quite similar Boris Johnson takes the question is not who nailed the most photo-realistic depiction of the man, but who did the best job of mocking his professed innocence?
IMHO, less is more, though it’s a race to see who came up with the most minimalistic commentary, with Banx holding an edge because everything he does is minimalist.
In any case, one should not mistake a spare style for a lack of artistry, nor should you mistake detail for art, as Apatoff makes clear.
The key, rather, is to develop a style, and, once you’ve done that, caricatures should fall into that style.
It can be relatively realistic, as in this Herblock drawing of Barry Goldwater, and I would add that the initials on his briefcase are hardly necessary, particularly given that he was a presidential candidate at the time. It’s not traced, but it’s clearly a picture of Goldwater, drawn in Herblock’s style.
Just as Ann Telnaes did not have to label Attorney General John Ashcroft in this piece, which reflects her unmistakable style.
And I’m glad she didn’t, as any additional verbiage, even a small label, would have detracted from the power of her message.
Even Tom Toles, whose style was as minimalistic as that of Banx, was able here to create a more-than-passable caricature of Donald Rumsfeld, though he generally labeled his caricatures. I don’t think he had to, particularly since the person thus being drawn was invariably at the center of some major story.
As it happens, this comment on a particularly heartless remark drew condemnation from the Joint Chiefs, and I don’t think they needed a label to tell them who Toles was criticizing.
There is a second element to copying,
which is copying something well-known. It’s lazy to trace a well-known building, and, assuming the cartoonist has developed a distinctive style, it should stand out anyway, and not in a good sense.
However, there are times when copying a well-known image and adapting it to your own style is the right move:
Clay Bennett captured a great deal of Tenniel‘s classic illustration here, and he’s enough of a skilled draftsman that we may assume his slightly adapted version was done freehand, though it hardly matters, given the updated, original touches he added.
His lighter touch probably reproduced better on newsprint than a more faithful copy would have, and I’d also note that he acknowledges Tenniel next to his signature. (I like that he says “after John Tenniel” rather than “Apologies to …” a phrase which always makes me think that, if you need to apologize, you shouldn’t do it.)
(James Gillray, with a second hat-tip to Dave Brown)
Adapting a classic does not so much require a faithful copy so much as a faithful application, and these parodies of James Gillray’s classic 1805 cartoon of Napoleon and William Pitt carving up the world vary in that respect.
David Rowe’s 2017 take parodies the original but mocks Trump, who is shown as a baby watching as Xi slices off whatever he wants while Trump does not carry a similar blade nor demonstrate a similar ability to carve for himself. As such, Rowe comments on the summit then happening, suggesting that Trump is hardly an equal to Xi as Pitt was to Napoleon.
Ariail’s take goes farther afield, and so I’m not sure it works. He’s certainly right that Xi and Putin are contemplating moves with substantial global effects, but they aren’t in the process of dividing the globe between them, either in terms of actual territory or in terms of spheres of influence.
Another issue here is that, while Bennett could be confident that most people would recognize Alice, her tea party and the contemporary Tea Party movement, even if they didn’t recognize the play on Tenniel’s illustration, it’s not likely the average person would know Gillray’s original or be able to make the comparison to Napoleon and Pitt.
That makes it crucial that the piece also stand alone.
It’s less of a problem for Rowe, because his cartoon is a discussion of world dominance, which was also Gillray’s point, and so Rowe’s parody can indeed stand alone.
Ariail’s version also stands alone, but doesn’t convey the same message, so the inside reference — whether obvious or obscure — is lost. He’d have probably done better to come up with a completely fresh image.
One final thought:
Copying ideas is a completely different topic than copying artwork and photos. We can deal with it another day, but these quick points:
- We’re all on Facebook. Illustrating a meme you saw there isn’t going to fool anyone. Don’t be foolish.
- Deadlines and posting times vary so much that it’s hard to tell coincidences from theft. Just because two cartoonists come up with the same idea within a few days, don’t assume one stole from the other.
- A good rule is “If the idea came to you quickly, it probably came to other cartoonists, too.” That’s how we ended up with three dozen weeping Statues of Liberty after 9/11. If an idea seems obvious, find one that isn’t.
- Shit happens. As demonstrated here:
Comments 13
Comments are closed.