
Maybe that’s because the heart of cartoons is the art form of caricature. Merriam-Webster has this to say about caricature:
1car·i·ca·ture noun\ˈker-i-kə-ˌchu̇r, -ˌchər, -ˌtyu̇r, -ˌtu̇r, -ˈka-ri-\Definition of CARICATURE1: exaggeration by means of often ludicrous distortion of parts or characteristics2: a representation especially in literature or art that has the qualities of caricature3: a distortion so gross as to seem like caricature(Dictionary and Thesaurus)
Caricature is, by its very nature, exaggerative and distortional. It is not a picture of life as it is, but rather life skewed to the ridiculous. I guess I have a hard time finding the insult in something I know is not intended to be a portrait of life as it is or life as it ought to be, but rather is a portrait of life distorted.
On the other hand, when looking at the cartoon listed on Blackboard simply as “Bugs Bunny”, where once again, Bugs is being hunted, again by a bumbling character, this time a white Mountie with a speech impediment, the viewer is less inclined to want to raise a cry of “Foul!” (Unless you have a pronounced lisp – then you might take offense at the character of Elmer Fudd.)
Why is that? Maybe it is simply the perspective of sensitivity. I think that perhaps, at the time these cartoons were created, people were less sensitive to issues of race than we are now, having had the benefit of the Civil Rights Movement in our history.
Works Cited
Dictionary and Thesaurus - Merriam-Webster Online. 2011. Web. 06 Apr. 2011. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/caricature>.
No comments:
Post a Comment