My parents, and particularly my dad, are avid newspaper readers. Growing up, they would always show me the political cartoons. As a child, I was much more interested in the caricatured interpretations of people I saw on TV than the message. They would explain them to me, and I wouldn’t think much more of it. As I got older, I thought they were lame and was not impressed with the goofy drawings or whatever boring statement was being made. Cartoons are supposed to be funny, and these were not. Once in high school, my AP US History teacher would spend time showing us political cartoons from whatever time period we were studying at that point in the semester. It wasn’t until then that I realized these cartoons had significant cultural and historical importance. Now in college, I don’t ever look at the newspaper but I am a regular reader of The Economist. I make a point to look at the political cartoons in each weekly edition, as well as KAL’s cartoon online, and finally have a genuine appreciation for both the work and message.
Studying the depictions of Napoleon Bonaparte in political cartoons was very interesting this week, and I’m glad we had an entire class period to spend. It’s interesting that the overall style of political cartoons hasn’t changed too much in all this time, although their significance has. In Napoleon’s time, many were illiterate and could understand a simple drawing better than struggling through a block of text. Although literacy rates are much higher now, we still use cartoons in news publications. They may not carry the weight that they did 200 years ago, but they are often the most affective way to get a point across. I don’t think political cartoons from our time period will be considered as much an important part of recorded history like the ones about Napoleon, but they are definitely of cultural importance. We no longer have to worry about political leaders destroying newspaper print shops or arresting a dissenting blogger, but they are still a valuable way for people to show how they feel about prominent figures and world events.
The cartoons about Napoleon were brutally honest, and definitely showed me he was not viewed by everyone as the exalted military leader he’s often depicted as. It’s easy to forget there are at least two sides to every historical event or person, and the cartoons were a great way to get in touch with what the average person may have felt at that time.
I definitely think that political cartoons aren't as influential as they used to be. In the time of Napoleon, political cartoons were so influential because it was one of the only ways to get a point across at the time. it revealed the true Napoleon and let people see another side of him than he portrayed.
ReplyDeleteI agree that political cartoons are not as influential or persuasive as they once were, but their messages are memorable. We might not remember reading a paragraph on some political topic or concept, but we'll remember a funny cartoon. Like they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. It was/is a way to give a serious matter a lighter mood without understating the importance.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that the political cartoons offered people a glimpse of the 'other side' of Napoleon. However, just as I would caution against uncritically accepting the heroic and imperial images of Napoleon, I would also suggest that the extent to which these cartoon represented popular opinion should be considered. As I read over the various blogs about the images, I also wonder if the real point of these anti-Napoleon images is to suggest how popular and powerful he really was. Why else would such effort be made to create and spread negative views about him? Does the anti-Napoleon exhibit actually confirm the positive view of Napoleon that it seeks to destroy?
ReplyDelete