humorgrafe

Reportagem sobre a Seminário na ONU sobre o carttonismo

Seminar Tackles Cartooning, Opens Wider Dialogue
By Melissa Gorelick

Political cartoonists have deep-rooted power and significant responsibilities, said a panel of experts at the United Nations headquarters in New York on Monday. "Cartooning for Peace" is the fifth event in the "Unlearning Intolerance" conference series. It was sponsored by the United Nations Department of Public Information in partnership with the Claus M. Halle Institute for Global Learning at Emory University, and brought together political cartoonists from around the globe.
The raw, unmediated power of cartooning - especially its ability to transcend language barriers and even words altogether - was at the forefront of the debate. Cartoons ''can encourage us to look critically at ourselves, and increase our empathy for the sufferings and frustration of others,'' said Secretary-General Kofi Annan as he opened the discussion. Many panelists agreed, noting that a cartoon's visceral connection with readers meant a great responsibility for them personally as the authors of cartoons.
"Images have great power, and it's too easy to go too far," said Michel Kichka, a freelance cartoonist and senior lecturer at Israel's Bezalel Academy. But the panelists were quick to note that in order to do justice to their role as social critics, striking a balance is essential. Cartooning is one of the last media "where you can be unfair and sarcastic and take shots," said Mike Luckovich, a two-time Pulitzer Prize winning cartoonist for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "And I love that", he added. "But you shouldn't incite people just to incite them."
"Editorial cartoonists are not here to make pretty, innocuous pictures," said Ann Telnaes, a freelance cartoonist from the United States, adding that they are the "ultimate barometer" of a free press. Ranan Lurie, a renowned cartoonist and sponsor of the annual United Nations Correspondents Association Ranan Lurie Political Cartooning Award, said that the "highest caliber" of cartoonists is that which analyzes the world intelligently and independently, instead of taking orders from partisan groups. Ms. Telnae and Mr. Lurie's American colleague, Jeff Danziger, agreed. He said that cartoons must reflect an objective reality, even when that reality is unpleasant.
Political cartoons have been a topic of significant debate since tensions flared over a series of Danish cartoons depicting the Prophet Mohammed a year ago. Mr. Luckovich and his colleagues warned that often in cartooning "the image can overwhelm the message"-indeed a dangerous risk in today's volatile world.
Carsten Graabaek, a political cartoonist from Denmark, recalled how the Prophet cartoon controversy unfolded, when widespread rioting early this year drew attention to the often overlooked influence of cartoons. He said that a difficult and fundamental rift exists between cultures that believe in free speech and those that do not. While Mr. Graabaek said that bridging this divide may never be possible, he suggested that cartoonists learn to move forward with more caution. "It's a matter of adding another item to the code of conduct of political correctness", he said.
As cartoonists in some parts of the world grapple with reining in poignant images, those in regions where free speech is a new concept are just learning to mobilize this powerful art form. In northern Kenya, for example, panelist Godfrey Amon Mwampembwa - also known as "Gado" - teaches refugee artists to use cartoons to achieve their goals. Many countries with oppressive government regimes still regulate who and what can be criticized by the media. Palestine's Baha Boukhari, who addressed the conference room in Arabic, said that the number of working cartoonists in an Arab state correlates almost directly to the amount of free speech allowed in that state. Jean Plantu, a veteran cartoonist for France's Le Monde newspaper and the seminar's organizer, agreed. This is one area where United Nations agencies may be able to help, he said.
Other issues touched on by the panel of cartoonists included cartoons as proponents of progressive social issues, like women's rights, and as educational tools. Among the many cartoons displayed at the seminar were several by panelist Cintia Bolio, a syndicated Mexican cartoonist and one of the only female cartoonists in that country. Showing a poignant slide of a battered Mexican wife, she said that cartoons were an ideal medium for sharing "uncomfortable knowledge", such as unjust social conditions and issues of religion and sexuality.
Like Mr. Mwampembwa's workshops in Kenyan refugee camps, several other panelists described unique educational cartooning in which they are currently involved: Japan's Norio Yamanoi has written a cartoon guide to understanding Middle Eastern politics, which he said most Japanese know very little about; and Liza Donnelly, a long-time cartoonist for The New Yorker magazine, said she teaches classes of both five-year-olds and 20-year-olds.
"War is taught, and peace is lived", Ms. Donnelly said. By actively questioning war and teaching peace-through cartoons or otherwise-cartoonists can help repair damage that aggression and violence has done over the years. "Cartoons can hurt", she said. "But they can also heal, as well."

SECRETARY-GENERAL ADDRESSES ‘UNLEARNING INTOLERANCE: CARTOONING FOR PEACE’ SEMINAR

Following is the text of remarks by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan at the “Unlearning Intolerance: Cartooning for Peace” Seminar at Headquarters in New York on 16 October:
Welcome to the United Nations. I am so glad that we have been able to bring this distinguished group of cartoonists together at United Nations Headquarters.
Let me thank the Halle Institute; Shashi Tharoor and his colleagues in the United Nations Department of Public Information –- especially the staff of our Regional Information Centre in Brussels; and above all, my friend Plantu. This seminar, and the accompanying exhibition -– which we hope to take on the road to Brussels, Geneva, Cairo and other world centres -– were his idea. He has been working for many years to make them happen.
I have always thought that cartoons are one of the most important elements in the press. They have a special role in forming public opinion –- because an image generally has a stronger, more direct impact on the brain than a sentence does, and because many more people will look at a cartoon than read an article.
If you are flicking through a newspaper you have to make a conscious decision to stop and read an article, but it is hardly possible to stop yourself from looking at a cartoon.
That means that cartoonists have a big influence on the way different groups of people look at each other.
They can encourage us to look critically at ourselves, and increase our empathy for the sufferings and frustrations of others. But, they can also do the opposite. They have, in short, a big responsibility.
Cartoons make us laugh. Without them, our lives would be much sadder. But they are no laughing matter: they have the power to inform, and also to offend. Short of physical pain, few things can hurt you more directly than a caricature of yourself, of a group you belong to, or -- perhaps worst -- of a person you deeply respect.
Cartoons, in other words, can both express and encourage intolerance, and also provoke it. And the sad truth is that they often do all three.
So, if we are going to “unlearn” intolerance, as the title of this series of seminars proposes, we need to engage cartoonists in the discussion.
They can help us to think more clearly about their work, and how we react to it. And, perhaps, we can help them to think about how they can use their influence, not to reinforce stereotypes or inflame passions, but to promote peace and understanding. Certainly, they can help each other to do that.
Plantu, who is a brilliant and sensitive cartoonist, had this idea long ago. When he came to see me about it, in January of this year, we were both still blissfully unaware of the furore about the caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad, which was just about to burst upon the international scene.
But, of course, that affair, and the reactions to it, have shown us all how vital and urgent it is to have meetings like this one today.
Yes, cartoons can offend, and that is part of their point. If we banned all offensive cartoons, we should make our newspapers and websites very dull, and deprive ourselves of an important form of social and political comment.
In fact, I am not convinced that the solution to this problem lies in invoking the authority of the State at all. Even if we decided to ban only cartoons that are deeply offensive to large numbers of people, we would still be asking the State to make some very subjective judgements, and embarking on a slippery slope of censorship.
I would much prefer to leave decisions about what to publish in the hands of editors, and of the cartoonists themselves. They need to be aware of their responsibility, and at least to think about how their work may be seen, and felt, by different groups of people.
Does that involve “self-censorship”? In a sense, yes -- but exercised, I would hope, in a spirit of genuine respect for other people’s feelings, not out of fear.
Does it involve “political correctness”? Not, I hope, if that means being dull and pretentious. But again, yes, if it means remembering that other people have feelings. There is nothing admirable, or indeed funny, about heaping further humiliation and contempt on any group in society whose members are already feeling vulnerable and frightened.
I hope also that we can avoid getting into a kind of “cartoon war”, in which one group seeks to retaliate for the offence it has suffered, or believes it has suffered, by publishing whatever it thinks will be most offensive to another group, reflecting the mentality of “an eye for an eye”.
That approach, as Mahatma Gandhi taught us, in the end leaves everyone blind. It is certainly not the way to promote better understanding and mutual respect between people of different faith or culture.
I am not suggesting that there are easy and clear answers to all these problems. We have to face the fact that sometimes there is tension, if not contradiction, between different values which in themselves are equally precious.
In peacemaking and peacebuilding, we often find that tension between peace and justice. In the present case, we may find it between freedom of expression and respect for the beliefs and feelings of others.
When that happens, the answer is not simply to assert the primacy of one value over the other. We have to work to find ways of preserving and reconciling both. This seminar is a good opportunity to do just that.