StarDestroyer.Net BBS

So this was an idea I have been kicking around for a while, because let us be honest, not everyone who "Draws" Political cartoons is that good at Drawing.. Sure "Art" is subjective, but there are those times when we see a political Cartoon and say "Well THAT is just lazy"

This started with a friend of mine pointing out the two following cartoons...
The first was posted Sept 24 2010:


And the Second was posted May 10 2012

Notice any, slight, similarities between them at all?

This particular artist is sadly known for this, Another example was from around the same time:
Sept 29 2010


And now again in Aug 14th 2012


I am hoping however, that others know of equally "Artistically" bad example. This shouldn't turn into just "bad" political cartoons" or even just conservative ones, I am sure theres Liberal ones that lack any real imagination as well.

What is it you don't like about them? The art? The message? That he reuses his own art? The caricatures themselves?

Just putting stuff up and assuming everyone is going to know what you are talking about is annoying.

Both reusing old cartoons and the art style.. It is lazy, unimaginative and sloppy.
I understand, as a graphics artist myself, that the point of political cartoons are often to make characters of existing people, exaggerating features and such, and that is fine. But I considered these cases extreme enough to warrant examination. And I would imagine that you over time have seen other such cartoons. Not just ones you don't agree with, but visually "bad" The ones that have every last item labeled. With a soldier marked "US Soldier" or a fox labeled "Fox"

Why is reusing something necessarily a bad thing?

...it's incredibly lazy. art is the creative expression of an idea, the lines,
color choice, and other elements of the image should creatively reflect the message, otherwise we're human photocopiers. seriously, people are paying for this product, there's no need to half ass it, where's the quality control.

Lazyness in the process of creating something doesn´t necessarily mean a bad result.
The buyer pays for the result not the process.

Andy Warhol was a lazy bum!

Edit - since this isn't actually testing...

Politcal cartoon = the message is more important then the art. So reusing previous work to make the point is fine. Him redrawing a face doesn't make the message stronger.

salm wrote:Lazyness in the process of creating something doesn´t necessarily mean a bad result.
The buyer pays for the result not the process.

So what is the first word in the title of this thread again?

madd0ct0r wrote:
Andy Warhol was a lazy bum!

Edit - since this isn't actually testing...

Politcal cartoon = the message is more important then the art. So reusing previous work to make the point is fine. Him redrawing a face doesn't make the message stronger.

Are you kidding me with this? The 32 soup cans were all individually painted, not photocopies or photoshopped, painted 20x16 they are NOT identical, each one was made to a specific purpose. if political cartoonists were doing that I'd have no problem but they aren't. Reusing previous work is not fine, redrawing the face does make the message stronger, the artists gives the image the attention it deserves and communicates specifically rather than with a general caricature.

look at Sept 24 2010 and May 10 2012, Obama's face as the reader moves let to right gives the semblance of drawing closer, stating his position with increasing fervor and rising desperation
In the original, this was because he was trying to hold contradictory positions and play with words to make them seem the same, in the second, his last panel is nonsensical. In the first image, his audience is described ideologically, and in the second he is first speaking to one party and then the other and the inference in the final panel is that he made no sense to either party. They are different scenarios. If the artist hand't been lazy the second time around he could have better conveyed the message, perhaps by Showing both audiences hearing gobbledygook and expressing confusion.

A cartoon is more than just the words, there is visual expression involved as well. If you really get into it, the size and font you use to convey certain ideas is an entire field of art, we've only been talking about artistic laziness in terms of copying image, but really this is the equivalent of exactly what you thought Warhol did. Photocopying the same image making a minor adjustment and calling it art. It's not art, it's uninentional self satire at best.

By the way Warhol was satirizing the production process, I don't know if that came across in my post, he used specific industrial printing methods intentionally to create his result, that's innovative and intentional, recycling artwork to sell another piece without investing time and supplies is just weak

the 32 cans were individually painted? huh - the more you know...

I always thought Warhol was a big fan of having an assistant screen print things, especially, as you say, he was satirizing the production purpose.

Themightytom wrote:

salm wrote:Lazyness in the process of creating something doesn´t necessarily mean a bad result.
The buyer pays for the result not the process.

So what is the first word in the title of this thread again?

Please elaborate. This doesn´t appear to make any sense.
First of all reusing something is not necessarily lazyness and second even if lazyness is used in the process it still doesn´t mean that there´s necessarily anything bad about the result. Not even artistically.

madd0ct0r wrote:the 32 cans were individually painted? huh - the more you know...

I always thought Warhol was a big fan of having an assistant screen print things, especially, as you say, he was satirizing the production purpose.

He was indeed, but it wasn't quite as simple as that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell's_Soup_Cans

Wiki - yes I know... wrote:It consists of thirty-two canvases, each measuring 20 inches (51 cm) in height × 16 inches (41 cm) in width and each consisting of a painting of a Campbell's Soup can—one of each of the canned soup varieties the company offered at the time.[1] The individual paintings were produced by a printmaking method—the semi-mechanized screen printing process, using a non-painterly style.

I have to say, I never knew that the cans were all different varieties of soup before. But they clearly have "vegetable", "tomato", etc on them when you look.