The nuanced art of newspaper cartoons

May 31, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – Three weeks ago, Stabroek News carried a cartoon which triggered controversy among two groups in Guyana who accused the cartoon of stereotyping African Guyanese. Stabroek News has not responded to this criticism nor has it removed the cartoon from its online edition.

Those who criticised the carton missed entirely what was being depicted and the deeper meaning behind the cartoon. They essentially saw what they wanted to see. But that is not an unusual or unique occurrence. Interpreting a cartoon is a nuanced art. And not everyone always grasps the message and context. Cartoons with their potent mix of humour, satire, and artistry, serve as a powerful medium for social and political commentary. They encapsulate complex issues into a single, impactful image, often but not always using exaggeration, irony, and symbolism to convey their messages. However, discerning and interpreting these cartoons is a nuanced task that poses several challenges for some viewers.

Cartoons heavily rely on symbols and metaphors to communicate their messages. A broken scale might represent a flawed justice system, while an oversized boot could symbolise oppression. These symbols are culturally and contextually specific, requiring the viewer to possess a certain level of background knowledge. Without understanding these symbols, the cartoon’s message may be lost or misinterpreted. Caricature is a common technique in cartoons, where public figures are exaggerated to highlight specific traits. While exaggeration is intended to be humorous, it can sometimes be misread as disrespectful or offensive. The challenge lies in balancing satire with sensitivity, ensuring that the caricature is interpreted as intended: a critique of actions and policies, not a personal attack.

A well-crafted cartoon often leaves room for multiple interpretations, adding to its complexity. This ambiguity is intentional, inviting viewers to think critically about the issues presented. However, it also means that different viewers might derive different meanings from the same cartoon, influenced by their own perspectives.

This subjectivity can unfortunately create misunderstandings which is what appears to have happened to both IDPADA-G and the WPA. Both organisations issued statements critical of the cartoon. The former accused the cartoonist of presenting a one-sided characterisation of poverty and crime and objected to what it saw as the stereotype of the African Guyanese as a criminal with images of people of African descent in conflict with the law. The latter, the WPA, accused the cartoon of being insensitive and of assigning a racial face to high crime.

The criticisms do highlight the fact that in a multiethnic society, cartoonists must be sensitive to racial, religious and other cultural feelings. While editorial freedom is a licence given to cartoonists, it is not without boundaries. My own view is that these two groups misread the cartoon completely. The cartoon did not set out to stereotype any race or grouping nor did it do so unwittingly. It is debatable whether the child depicted in the cartoon represents any specific race. The child’s head is completely bald, eliminating any clear ethnic identifiers. Those who assume the child is African might have made this inference due to the dark shadows on the child’s face, which they may have been mistaken for his skin tone, thus associating it with a particular race.

The dark lines and shadows, however, symbolise the grim reality of poverty and the pervasive impact it has on the lives of the impoverished. The central message of the cartoon is that poverty drives the innocent, represented by the child, into crime, including violent crime. In cartoons, the use of dark shadow or shades is a powerful visual tool to symbolise grim times and circumstances. These shadows often convey a sense of foreboding, despair, or hardship, creating an immediate emotional response in the viewer. By casting parts of the scene or characters in shadows or darkness, cartoonists highlight the severity and bleakness of the situation being depicted. This technique can effectively underscore themes of poverty, oppression, or moral decay, adding depth to the narrative without the need for words.

Critics of the cartoon may have overlooked that the child depicted is a reluctant participant in crime. The cartoon illustrates this with a single teardrop falling from his eyes and him sniffing, indicating he is crying. This detail underscores his fear and apprehension about being driven into crime by poverty. The child’s poverty is evident in his tattered clothing and bare feet. The cartoon sends us a warning that if poverty is not addressed, Guyana’s future will see innocent youth being forced into crime survival. This powerful message has unfortunately been overshadowed by the criticisms directed at the cartoon.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• cartoon, humour, oppression, Peeping Tom, satire

---