The Art of Controversy: Political Cartoons and Their Enduring Power

by Victor S. Navasky

A lavishly illustrated, witty, and original look at the awesome power of the political cartoon throughout history to enrage, provoke, and amuse.

As a former editor of The New York Times Magazine and the longtime editor of The Nation, Victor S. Navasky knows just how transformative—and incendiary—cartoons can be. Here Navasky guides readers through some of the greatest cartoons ever created, including those by George Grosz, David Levine, Herblock, Honoré Daumier, and Ralph Steadman.  He recounts how cartoonists and caricaturists have been censored, threatened, incarcerated, and even murdered for their art, and asks what makes this art form, too often dismissed as trivial, so uniquely poised to affect our minds and our hearts.

Drawing on his own encounters with would-be censors, interviews with cartoonists, and historical archives from cartoon museums across the globe, Navasky examines the political cartoon as both art and polemic over the centuries. We see afresh images most celebrated for their artistic merit (Picasso's Guernica, Goya's "Duendecitos"), images that provoked outrage (the 2008 Barry Blitt New Yorker cover, which depicted the Obamas as a Muslim and a Black Power militant fist-bumping in the Oval Office), and those that have dictated public discourse (Herblock’s defining portraits of McCarthyism, the Nazi periodical Der Stürmer’s anti-Semitic caricatures). Navasky ties together these and other superlative genre examples to reveal how political cartoons have been not only capturing the zeitgeist throughout history but shaping it as well—and how the most powerful cartoons retain the ability to shock, gall, and inspire long after their creation.


Here Victor S. Navasky brilliantly illuminates the true power of one of our most enduringly vital forms of artistic expression.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, Art

256 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2013

About the author

Victor Saul Navasky (born July 5, 1932) is an American journalist, editor, publisher, author and professor at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. He was editor of The Nation from 1978 until 1995, and its publisher and editorial director 1995 to 2005. In November 2005 he became the publisher emeritus. Navasky's book Naming Names (1980) is considered a definitive take on the Hollywood blacklist. For it he won a 1982 National Book Award for Nonfiction.

Reviews

[Christine · Rating 2 out of 5]

You think this would have been more interesting.

And seriously, as someone from Philadelphia, I am insulted that Tony Auth was not listed.

Would have been more interesting if the author had put far less of himself in this book. While the individual sections on cartoonists were somewhat interesting, they were not really detailed. You actually learn more about the author than anything else.

[Mikaela · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read like an overachieving college students research paper

[Lavanya Ramakrishnan · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent book to get one started on the subject of political cartoons. In a funny and engaging narrative, Navasky lists out the political cartoons that have led to controversies. He attempts to look at why cartoons are more impactful than written reports with his own theories -- content theory, image theory and neuroscience theory. He touches upon the powerful cartoons of over thirty cartoonists. There's mention of more than just the thirty-odd cartoonists --who one can always go back and learn more about. This is a slim book and gives it all, in a nutshell; it does so with the required context.

[Jennifer · Rating 3 out of 5]

More academic than I wanted. Meaning I wanted fewer words and more cartoons to look at but overall it was very interesting.

[David]

“For the political junkie, journalist, artist, cartoonist, or student, The Art of Controversy is a wonder story of an amazing art form.”

Ask a baby boomer about political cartoons and caricatures. Garry Trudeau’s “Doonesbury” will immediately come to mind as would Walt Kelley’s “Pogo.” His depictions of Richard Nixon (Kelly’s favorite target) and Vice President Spiro Agnew during the Watergate hold a special place. Even Pogo’s political philosophy is known by most: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

To read Victor Navasky’s The Art of Controversy is to bring a better understanding of the editorializing through pictures, lifelike and grotesque. It is a look at political cartoonist most have never known and the ability to be friend or, most likely, foe of the political target.

Read more at the New York Journal of Books: http://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/revie...

[P.S. Carrillo · Rating 5 out of 5]

An interesting look into the world of political cartoons. Navasky references artists from Hogarth, Thomas Nast, Picasso and Goya, to contemporaries like David Levine to illustrate the powerful impact this visual art has had. Fascinating subject that I think most of us take for granted. My only criticism is that the author should showcase cartoons that are not politically correct, meaning from the far right politically or from the West's enemies. He did include an analysis of the cartoons featured in the Nazi publication, Der Sturmer, but then contradicted his views on artistic freedom by celebrating the fact that the editor for DerSturmer was executed after being found guilty of perpetuating war crimes at the Nuremburg trials. Free speech cuts both ways especially when critiquing a specific art form.

[Fattah Fathun Karim]

Was looking for a book to understand the power of political cartoons and the censorship that followed. Navansky does a very good job explaining how cartoons stirred up societies, got powerful figures throughout up in their toes, and how many of them had to face dire consequences due to the distresses of the powerful few, or in some cases, the angry, agitated mob. Whats interesting in the book is that, navansky lays out a timeline at the end which i found really useful in order to compose an article that i am currently working on. This served as a good anchor for references. Navansky's timeline includes not a wide range of cartoonists but the ones whose cartoons had considerable societial and political impact. Apart from creating a directory of cartoonists and their works who had been hounded or pressured for their cartoons, navansky gives his own opinions too which i think are quite enlightening. Despite being a free speech absolutist himself, he too tones down when it comes to cartooning islamic figures or subtle racist tropes. Navansky discusses this dilemma, quotes many others but cant seem to reach a conclusion. I too came to realize, it's not possible to be a complete absolutist, but context, situations demand adjustment. A well visioned editorial board should be enough for that rather than an all watching, all dictating government interference. The book may give rise to confusion with respect to free speech absolutism but historical references of political cartoons, are something really illuminating. Navansky doesn't project about the future, or the contemporary, but leaves that to the reader himself to deduce.

[Jeff Lewonczyk · Rating 4 out of 5]

This isn't a history of caricature or political cartoons, so much as an idiosyncratic guided tour through parts of that history, led by a knowledgeable guide with deep curiosity and firsthand experience of the subject. Navasky was an editor of The Nation, among other publications, and worked closely with many well-known American illustrator/cartoonists (Edward Sorel, David Levine), which lends elements of this odd book the air of a professional memoir. But Navasky also dips his toe into theory and history along the way - as a result, the book is enlightening, even inspiring, without making any claims to being exhaustive. The emphasis is on artists and works who have caused some degree of actual controversy, either through inflaming their subjects or being misunderstood by the public, which presents some fascinating cautionary tales for aspiring scribblers - though he also includes a handful of artists seemingly just because he likes them. There are a lot of great stories here, and I was pleased to be introduced to a number of these names - it whetted my appetite to read something more comprehensive. (And I'd love to hear what Navasky would have said about the Charlie Hebdo massacre that took place two years after the book was published.) That said, I also look forward to seeing something more inclusive and global, that doesn't default as much to white dudes as subjects, though I imagine that's also a reflection of larger cultural issues.

[Karen Carlson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I’ve always considered cartoons the “fun” part of news, something to laugh at like a clever pun. Navansky’s book takes a different view: they are a straight shot to the emotions for a wider range of people than those who live for C-SPAN.
First, there's a discussion of three theories of why political cartoons have such impact, plus a section on caricatures; and second is a gallery of images from the 18th century to today, with detailed discussion of their impact. Black-and-white illustrations – the mainstay of newspaper images – appear on most pages, with an additional four-page color spread of paintings and magazine covers.
While I’m guessing it would be more of a natural fit for those whose political interests and historical understandings go farther back, I appreciated it as a way of better understandig the political art I see in my feeds.
FMI see my blog post at A Just Recompense.

[Jamie Gogocha · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a tough one to rate. I thought the concept and organization were interesting, and the cartoons featured were well chosen. However, the writing was terribly dry and reminded me of my college textbooks. I read through the first few chapters and then found myself skimming.

I was hoping for more discussion of the history and context of the cartoons, and how they influenced future artists. There was a little bit of that, but I just couldn't get excited about the content of the book.

[Nyjb Reviews · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ask a baby boomer about political cartoons and caricatures. Garry Trudeau’s “Doonesbury” will immediately come to mind as would Walt Kelley’s “Pogo.” His depictions of Richard Nixon (Kelly’s favorite target) and Vice President Spiro Agnew during the Watergate hold a special place. Even Pogo’s political philosophy is known by most: “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

To read Victor Navasky’s The Art of Controversy is to bring a better understanding of the editorializing through pictures, lifelike and grotesque. It is a look at political cartoonist most have never known and the ability to be friend or, most likely, foe of the political target.

Mr. Navasky also beings . . .

Click for complete review of The Art of Controversy by Victor S. Navasky at New York Journal of Books

[Lynne Handy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Victor S. Navasky is a former editor of The New York Times Magazine, as well as editor of The Nation. The first part of his book concentrates on cartoon theory--content, image, and stimulus--and provides sample cartoons from noted cartoonists. Caricature is also addressed. Charles Philipon (1800-1861) drew his king as a pear and was charged with defamation, but was acquitted when he proved the king really did have a pear-head. As for the history of cartoons, one theory posits that Martin Luther first used cartoons to inform an illiterate populace about the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church. Part of the book focuses on the work of well-known cartoonists like Bill Mauldin, George Grosz and Ralph Steadman. The final section, Timeline (1831-2012)lists censorship efforts with outcomes ranging from acquittal to death. Enjoyable book.

[Deb]

Former editor of The Nation and the New York Times Magazine, Navasky examines the art of the political cartoon and why these artistic creations are so often incendiary (and can be transformative). He examines some of the greatest political cartoonists of all time - George Grosz, David Levine, Herblock, and even early proponents like Honore Daumier and Francisco Goya, as he tries to understand the reasons that "a picture is worth ten thousand words." The responses of governments, populations and individuals to graphic depictions published in newspapers and magazines over the past two hundred years attests to the power of the cartoon. In the wake of "Je sues Charlie," this book is especially thought provoking and - dare I say it? - entertaining.

[Richard · Rating 2 out of 5]

I must admit that I just ' skimmed ' most of the book, however, I did read the first few chapters. I really thought it would be all illustrations of controversial cartoons/caricatures, but it wasn't. The author reviewed some of the world's best known artists and their motivations for their art. In fact, I was really suprised their wasn't as many art work in the subject matter for the book, all things considering.

[YNOT]

decent, not great. . .
i had seen on pbs back in 2011. . .
an intvw /w/ some professor i believe from wisconsin
about a book that he was publishing then
also about political cartooning. . .
and this was jest about the time of. . .
the scott walker protests ( the 1st of 'em! )
anybody? anything?! can't find any infos!!

[Rose · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reading is book is a good way to gain a comparison of the political cartoons of the past and those of today. It shows that these cartoons were just as scathing in the past as they are now. In fact, the cartoons of yesteryear seem more extreme in their vengeance and viewpoint that current ones, with some politicians portrayed as monsters!

[The Advocate]

"Don’t expect political correctness in this explosive study. Artists eviscerate dictators and democrats alike."
Read more

[Peter Podbielski · Rating 5 out of 5]

An essential read that should stand next to Ambrose Bierce's "Devil's Dictionary."

[Bryan · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this an informative read, but would have preferred a few more examples of the cartoons discussed. At times the focus seemed a bit scattered. Overall, though, I am glad I read it.

[Katie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not nearly as interesting as I'd hoped. Very dry and dull.

[Cindy · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would have liked longer chapters, more in depth, and maybe fewer cartoonists included. Would have been a good series title.