Cartoon analysis

[TrueTears]

Can someone please help give a summary of the implications and things for this cartoon

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/paul-sheehan/2008/05/25/1211653841090.html

The issue is Bill Henson, the artist who photographed pictures of naked children, and his works were confiscated during his exhibition. The article along with the cartoon gives some context. But the cartoon i really have no idea what it implies and how to write a paragraph of analysis on it. Any help would be much appreciated!

Thanks guys!!

[ice_blockie]

I will do it later...but for now...why not try to write a whole essay on it? Might be fun...

[TrueTears]

I will do it later...but for now...why not try to write a whole essay on it? Might be fun...

Thanks so much ice_blockie , i'm just trying to brainstorm some ideas.

[ice_blockie]

i cant see the cartoon....


EDIT: I am an idiot. I can see it now.

[ice_blockie]

Okay I've had a look and it is one of the harder ones. To help you out a bit for this and the future I've written up a short guide on how to analyse these sort of things:

1. What is your initial reaction to the image? Okay, in this case for me it was funny and I think most people would find it comical.

2. Why did you feel this way? Again, because the policeman was nude...

3. How does this position you to the major characters/players? Okay this makes them appear ludicrous and the situation farcical. Maybe its just me but the police guy looks like a stripper...

4. How does this image relate to the issue? Okay...police surrounded the gallery and closed the event down/took the paintings away as evidence I think. The nude part relates to the photos of nude children/adolescents and whatever else.

5. What contention can you form related to the issue? So we have police nude and they are taking pictures away. They look stupid and are idiots or stripping their clothes.

So contention is: That society as a whole is hypocritical in criticising Bill Henson's photographical works...

6. How does the image support this:
- Police are representative of keeping moral/ethical values of society, so they depict US
- They are nude - represent our rotten, defiled values - porn/sexualised society
- He looks stupid - so we are stupid/illogical etc
- double standards

and what do you know it supports the article!!

EDIT: Did I correct your language analysis on the same issue? It seems familiar

[TrueTears]

Thank you so much ice_blockie, that helped so much.

and the other language analysis was on Bill Henson issue but not this article XD

[Over9000]

Thanks so much iceblockie, I too am analysing this issue and your guide helped.

[ice_blockie]

no worries im glad it helped. if this was homework gee your teacher is harsh.

[TrueTears]

yeah our teacher gave us several hard cartoons lol. This is the last one, i've analysed all the other ones. Again the issue is Bill Henson, and the cartoon is quite difficult. Here is the link

http://www.homepagedaily.com/Pages/article4978-the-new-prudery.aspx

The article gives quite a bit of context to the issue and the cartoon too.

Could anyone brainstorm some ideas on the implications? Ideas? Techniques the cartoon employs.

Thank you so much for all your help!

[hard]

mm these are quite difficult images to analyze. But try understand what the issue is about first then think about different perspectives that individuals may look upon this issue. Then relate this to the image and what the illustrator is trying to convey.

[TrueTears]

mm these are quite difficult images to analyze. But try understand what the issue is about first then think about different perspectives that individuals may look upon this issue. Then relate this to the image and what the illustrator is trying to convey.

yeah thanks hard, i trying to brainstorm ideas and implications, but getting no where

[ice_blockie]

GOLDEN RULE: "Make bull crap up and support it with evidence"...

Actually I found this image easier than the last one...that stumped for a while.

Just one note; as you analyse more and more cartoons, just by looking at it, you probably could guess everything about the issue and the contention. In this case, you can't - I assumed the article was something about political expediency and how Kevin Rudd was hijacking the debate to appeal to high moral ground...but alas no...it was far more simpler:


1. What is your initial reaction to the image? This is a weird weird picture with Kevin & baby. Censored - something dirty? porn? porn & kevin rudd...what??? confusion

2. Why did you feel this way? confused because things normally censored are either too violent or sexually graphic... concerned at baby crying - why is kevin rudd's head so big?

3. How does this position you to the major characters/players? kevin appears evil? but smiling? baby crying? ambiguous!

4. How does this image relate to the issue? kevin rudd attacking bill henson...baby nude - nude children in photos

5. What contention can you form related to the issue?

a) we feel ambiguous/confused after looking at pic
b) its very strange

This image is a sensationalist depiction of society's excessive "prudishness" or political correctness? Illustrator contends that our reaction to Bill Henson's photographs are over reactive and are representative of a society that has become excessively insulated, prejudicial and corrupted.

6. How does the image support this:

- We even censor kissing babies
- Naked babies have lost innocence
- Even prime ministers cannot escape excessive social constraints
- designed to elicit confusion and ambiguity to reflect our own social code - that we ourselves are 'confused' 'lost' 'insane' in our condemnation, and we have been estranged from 'normal society'

[TrueTears]

You're a bloody legend ice_blockie

[Over9000]

second that

[TrueTears]

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/4031/0001ntk.png (make sure you zoom in when viewing it)

another cartoon, i have written an analysis on it but i think improvements can be made, could someone please correct it

Leak suggests in a critical and humorous tone that Bill Henson's recruitment method is morally disturbing and his artwork is unnatural as he is selective of his students.

Bill Henson is portrayed to be looking depressed and sad; this suggests that he can not find any “model” students. The camera is hanging near his crotch which implies that he is perverted and pedophiliac. The students near the edge of the bush look slightly overweight and can be considered as the “non-model” students. This suggests that Henson is not interested in students who do not meet his standards of a “model” student. This implies that Henson’s art is unnatural and does not depict the ‘true’ innocence of children. The two slimmer children who are hiding further in the bush are most likely the “model” students. They are depicted to be scared and afraid of Henson; this further reinforces the idea that Henson’s art is exploitative of children. This can be also be seen as an emphasis on the title of the editorial. Audiences are encouraged to critically analyse the issue and come to a conclusion for themselves to whether Henson’s art is artistic or exploitative. The caption “maybe he’s one of those art bandits” undermines Henson’s status and credibility rendering him to be unprofessional and considered to be an outlaw in the arts community. This puts Henson under negative light and audiences will begin to question his artistic motivations.