I first went to Michael's Arts & Supply store, where I bought a few archaic caricature drawing books and one on how to learn the art of cartooning. I went for an elaborate, 'Leonardo da Vinci style' beginners kit, which included various pencils for drawing and shading, creating effects, and all kinds of other stuff I haven't figured out yet. (Does anyone know what that tiny, tightly-rolled little cone-shaped thing is?)
I strongly wanted to get into editorial cartooning, which is essentially taking (mostly) political thoughts on current events and subtly, wittingly crafting picturesque ideas that lend more thought to the viewer to ponder and determine the meanings themselves, rather than just writing about it. We've all seen them, but they're not quite the same as "the funny pages". Editorial cartoons are a much more elaborate set of ideas (mostly satire), though they often include wording as well, as the creator must focus on his point philosophically, profoundly seeding an emotional element while making it easy enough to be understood by the average reader.
A well-trained, or even a "natural" artist can develop this talent after many years of practice and actually become "syndicated" in nationwide newspapers and publications in due time. But, not just anyone with a pencil and desire can woo the hearts of print moguls and make their way onto the presses; some become misunderstood due to "political differences" and even at odds with an affiliation due to a "perceived imbalance" of content.
Sometime last year, I read through an article in my local paper's Opinion section where I quickly learned that the readers' responses, as well as the overall tone of the newspaper's entire staff (from Editorial to Publisher) was about as "Far Left" as the New York Times; in fact, the only difference was the name of the paper, The Las Vegas Sun. I noticed there were only about 2-3 articles written by named columnists there, as the rest of the paper was a collage of other national papers' editorials with extreme, liberal views literally taken from columns published that day from all over the country. It was then I really noticed and read the Editorial Cartoons, all of which were Republican-bashing (particularly Bush); extremely anger-filled drawings. Looking at them for a few moments, I thought to myself, "Hey, I can do this. I'm a decent artist, and who can't spew biased hatred against their opponents."
Turns out it's not so easy after all. I went on to Google search "editorial cartooning", where I turned up more results than I knew what to do with. Part of my mission was to find a site that could teach me (without a course or tuition fees) how to counter the left's hatred and subsequently publish my own Objective (but Conservative) views onto my own venue (or website), just for the fun and accomplishment of it.
To my surprise, I found quite a few good ones, and some that just blew my mind. One that caught my eye in particular was one I noticed on what's turned out to be the hottest, fastest-growing blog/v-cast website on the internet today (just over a million hits a week), HotAir.com; listed on the "sidebar" with a few others under "Cartoons/Satire". I was amazed that only a few were there, and embarrassed that since I visit that site multiple times daily, it was a section I'd never really checked out before. I figured, "must be there for a reason"; the creators of HotAir are the best in the business, and it just might be worth looking into this one.
I clicked on the first one listed, the same that Google directed me to as if as by fate: CoxandForkum.com. At first I was inundated with the meanings of the editorials, but quickly realized that (by a little scrolling) an actual, detailed article appeared beneath it, explaining the context the cartoon intended. So simple yet complex, so subtle and reasonably objective, I again went to Google "CoxandForkum" to find a list of national papers that syndicated them. Surely such an industry-leading, creatively talented team had endorsements coming out of their ears, right?
I hardly found anything. Investor's Business Daily, The Detroit News, a few others and in some publications, but otherwise, it almost seemed like there was an eggregious oversight. Perplexed, I wrote the artists a question (to which, at my amazement, I was responded to almost immediately) to submit an idea they might use. I was advised that while I couldn't be paid, if they could use my idea, they would certainly see to it that credit was given.
Fair enough. I began reading through their "About Me" section, researched a little on their "Bio's", and found them to be generally likeable fellows with an eerie ability to capture the essence of a particular issue with incredibly profound meaning and the use of very little ink. Their drawings, it seems, are not lost or outdone by the combination of their witty, satirical commentary. I inquired further, hoping to better understand why this ingenious team of impeccable talent wasn't getting the recognition they obviously deserve. (If you aren't familiar with their work, or might be interested in their books, click on the link here.)
Turns out (while taking nothing away from the other, hardworking and equally dedicated editorial cartoonists out there) that if you are considered "ideologically" (mis)characterized by an agenda-driven, socialist-based, liberal "news" agency, your work won't be considered "Objective enough" to use or print in their papers. Talk about media bias, huh? While I've read (and reported before) that over 70% of media journalists are self-described "liberals" (which I believe is a low-balled, fudged number to distort and not alienate all readership), it seems that bashing your ideological counterpart, or silencing (censoring?) their voices, even if only perceived to be different than yours, is okay with some mainstream writers and publishers in this great democracy of ours. Freedom of the press, indeed.
Truth be told, CoxandForkum are an esteemed, highly regarded group of two brilliant artists whose dream has been (albeit temporarily) stifled by some committed to not recognizing their pure ingenuity. Sure, Family Circus is funny. Marmaduke has its moments, and Hagar the Horrible (and many others) are witty in their own, humorous, childlike (plain-minded, open-readership) kind of way. Anyone can enjoy them on a daily basis for the crafty silliness they intend to procure.
Let's put it this way: to deny an intelligent, well-articulated cartoon of equal (if not greater) editorial value than what's syndicated out there right now; well, its just pure madness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment