The power of cartoons

November 21, 2007 1:37 PM

Communication theory: Why are cartoons used as a method to communicate political themes when the same thing could be said in text? (more inside)

This might seem like a question with an obvious answer but is it? Why do newspapers choose to use space for cartoons versus print? I believe that cartoons have a totally different and sometimes much more powerful impact than words do. Take for example the recent rage and reaction over depictions of Muhammed in cartoons. Would their have been a similar reaction in the Arab world if the same issues were communicated through words? I supect not. But why? Can anyone point me to sources that speak to the power of the cartoon as a method of communication in mainstream print media?

Thanks in advance.

posted by Crackerbelly to media & arts (11 comments total)

Because a cartoon is instantly understandable in most cases and also allows for artistic license with embellishing certain characteristics or takes on things that wouldn't necessarily fly or come across in the written word.
posted by 45moore45 at 1:39 PM on November 21, 2007

Something about pictures and thousands of words ....
posted by scblackman at 1:42 PM on November 21, 2007 [1 favorite]

I think that you could find sources that partially give the answer to this by looking up "visual rhetoric." This page looks like an okay starting point.
posted by mustcatchmooseandsquirrel at 1:44 PM on November 21, 2007

Focusing on the Muhammad thing: it doesn't seem like a good example because, in Abrahamic religions, graven images are treated with different standards than blasphemous words. I'm guessing, but it's probably because these religions became popular in an era that didn't boast widespread adult literacy.
posted by box at 1:44 PM on November 21, 2007

Because the method for decoding a picture is much different than for reading. That makes the point stick much better because it is a nonverbal way of transmitting information that is almost always verbally presented, which makes it different and memorable.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:44 PM on November 21, 2007

The medicine always goes down more smoothly with humor.
posted by caddis at 2:04 PM on November 21, 2007

Understanding Comics is a great introduction to how cartoons function.
posted by lemuria at 2:37 PM on November 21, 2007 [1 favorite]

You can always say things "in character" that you would never be able to say yourself.

For example, look at Howard Stern... he uses various klansmen, morons and racists to say things that would get him thrown off the air if he said it himself.

In ye olden days, your cartoon character would be a lot more likely to get away with mocking your government than you would be. It's an important concept that our founding fathers and the Supreme Court keep alive... that sarcasm/parody is essential to a healthy democracy... and is worthy of protection.
posted by Mr_Crazyhorse at 3:36 PM on November 21, 2007

You might find it interesting to compare underground and unknown political cartoonists with the typical sort.

I don't think you'd find Tim Kreider's "Compassionate Conservatism" comes to Washington up on politicalcartoons.com.
posted by sebastienbailard at 6:40 PM on November 21, 2007

It's worth noting that US newspaper cartoons tend to be 'textier' than British ones, with more labelling, glossing and, well, stating the bleeding obvious. (Daryl Cagle's digest is good for comparison's sake.)

The British Cartoon Archive is a good place to look, as well as this description to accompany Tate Britain's Gillray exhibition.

The British tradition is seen very much as a tradition: it's possible to invoke Gillray or David Low, or parody paintings or photographs. It's a visual language with its own history and dynamic, and that can't be easily replicated in text.
posted by holgate at 8:18 PM on November 21, 2007

My understanding was that the rise of the political cartoon originated with Thomas Nast, who was in a major way responsible for the fall of the Tweed Ring at the end of the 19th century.

As I understand it, Boss Tweed preyed on the immigrant population, which was largely uneducated and therefore illiterate. Nast's newspaper cartoons allowed the illiterate classes to learn what was going on - and in that same instant, form judgments about those events.

As literacy increased, the popularity of the cartoons waned, but never completely. I would ascribe the Danish Muhammad cartoon debacle to other phenomena entirely.

Read the Wikipedia post linked above for more.
posted by prophetsearcher at 11:35 PM on November 21, 2007