Professor Elaine Miller said, "The artist's intent is very interesting, but the reader owns the interpretation." She was referring to:

a) children's literature

b) political cartoons

c) modern poetry

d) abstract art

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Miller was discussing the problem with "The New Yorker's" controversial cover cartoon of July 21 featuring the Obamas as Muslim extremists. I was struck by how we've discussed the same basic issue here (i.e., does a poet 'own' his/her poem, or once it is launched, does the reader's interpretation take precedence?).

That's the problem with mass communication, isn't it? And it's why the deconstructionists got a foothold in the English Lit. departments and (from there) into the interpretation of biblical and other ancient texts.

The fallacy in deconstructionism (such as my simplistic mind understands the philosophical mumbo-jumbo that surrounds the concept) lies in the belief that simply because a reader can misconstrue the intent of the artist, the intent of the artist cannot be discerned and thus the reader can be excused (or even encouraged) for giving whatever interpretation he or she wants -- thus "owning the interpretation".

I don't subscribe to that point of view, as I think my comments on poetry (including sung poetry) here should make clear. The artist has a responsibility to make the intent clear, and the reader has a responsibility to seek out the intent of the artist. Both sides have to do their part, else mass communication is impossible. So I would say that neither takes precedence. (It's no surprise to me that in our "democratic" society, Miller would say that the reader's point of view takes precedence. In an authoritarian society, it would be taken for granted that the artist's point of view takes precedence -- consider how the Soviet Union used art and artists in the service of the State, with the reader's viewpoint being expected to conform to the artist's intent.)

That said, not being a regular reader of The New Yorker I was actually wondering at first glance if their satire was meant to express their own views of the Obamas or someone else's -- views that certainly express the fears and accusations of many a tangential conservative. Somehow the context didn't "jive" with the content. That (as Yoda might have said about the magazine's artist and editors) is why they failed. A magazine as relatively "liberal" as The New Yorker shouldn't have to explain itself when it puts up a caricature of conservative fears and accusations, and I believe the fact that it must says as much about the editors and the artist as about the readers.

wr ()()

While I believe that in some arts as poetry the unconscious plays a role, so I may communicate something legitimate to you without knowing it, and I may create something symbolic which may evoke or awaken things beyond expectation, that doesn't apply here. Time is of the essence when engaging in political satire. The punch thing was strong because it revealed a private moment between two public people. This picture fails because the event was not recent enough to be the center of the picture, and communicate in an instant. Would it have worked if the magazine had gotten it out in time? I doubt it, but we'll never know. The burning flag was wrong at all events.

The burning flag was wrong at all events.

Was it? Some people on the far right accuse Mr. Obama of either being virulently anti-American himself or else connected with (or at the very least aiding and abetting) those who are. Some of the latter set routinely burn American flags. The caricature wouldn't have been complete (that is, at its zenith or at its nadir, depending on your point of view) without that crowning touch. It wouldn't have reflected current events, as it were, fully.

I tend to think that the cartoon stands or falls as a piece. The bigger issue for me is whether I'd want to live and speak in such a way as to provoke that kind of satire (fairly or unfairly, and directed either at me or at my critics) in the first place.

Just a thought.

Hi IT,

Some other Slate fray is having a raging discussion of The New Yorker's cover. You should look it up if you're interested.

Because I was on vacation with some folks who follow the news even when they're on vacation, I heard about TNY cover before I actually saw my own copy.

So I tried to imagine how I might have reacted if I had seen it when it first arrived in my house. I think I would have figured out it was satiric of all the Obama myths, but only because I'm familiar with other covers by that artist and because I know TNY is fairly liberal.

However, people today don't seem to be as attuned to the kind of satire as they used to be. (Although I doubt Swift's "A Modest Proposal" was understood by most at first either.)

Since I want Obama to win, I hope this cover doesn't hurt him. I read that 1 in 10 Americans believes Obama is a Muslim. And about 25 % aren't sure whether he is or not.

But as a former journalism teacher, I will defend TNY's right to publish that cover.

I was struck by how we've discussed the same basic issue here (i.e., does a poet 'own' his/her poem, or once it is launched, does the reader's interpretation take precedence?).

I certainly don't think any old interpretation of a poem takes precedence over the poet's intent. One has to base his/her interp on what's in the poem.

In the case of TNY cover, all one has to do is read TNY's statement to know what the cover meant. If someone chooses to ignore what the artist meant and to use the cover to justify his/her prejudice, that doesn't mean it's "right" or "owned."

(now getting off my soapbox)
MA