Monday, February 06, 2006

Post #800: cartoons

Your humble Devil would just like to point out, amidst all this furore, that cartoons do not, by definition, have to be funny?
cartoon noun
  1. a drawing executed in an exaggerated style for humorous or satirical effect.

  2. (also cartoon strip) a narrative sequence of humorous drawings with captions in a comic, newspaper, or magazine.

  3. a film made from a sequence of drawings, using animation techniques to give the appearance of movement.

  4. a full-size drawing made as a preliminary design for a painting or other work of art.

Hogarth's cartoons, for instance, were not particularly laugh-a-minute works, but they were intended to make a point. These Mohammad cartoons are not funny, but they were intended to make a point.

Not every cartoon is intended to be as hilarious as Calvin and Hobbes, you know.


Anonymous said...

Since the cartoons in question don't fall into the last two categories, one must assume they fall within the first two? Humour or satire is required. So yes I suppose they could be satirical without being humourous. But I maintain my point that they were crap, either a pieces of humour or as satire.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Oh, I don't disagree that they are crap; and I'm sorry for picking you out...!


The very model of a modern scientific man

Your humble Devil was thoroughly amused by Neil Ferguson's fall from grace, and is very pleased to have found the time to outline Fergus...