political cartoons and graphic images

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Posting a portrait photograph that does not have any creative alterations, modifications or graphics, except for someone adding words beside or below the photograph - even if the words are funny - may qualify as a political commentary, but that does not make the photograph a political cartoon. It would be the same as if I posted an ordinary photograph of your face and typied below the photograph "Mr Fancypants likes to post on Visa Journey in his fancypants" . The addition of the words makes the photograph a commentary - it does not make it a cartoon, which by your posted definition is " a unique, pictorial, editorial and artistic creation with social commentary". Posting a basic portrait photograph and adding words does not make it a unique and artistic creation, even if it does have editorial and social commentary. Political commentary is fine, but does not necessarily qualify for a thread entitled 'political cartoons'.

Kathryn - those are political cartoons. They don't have to be drawn because that's not the point. This is ridiculous. They are political commentary using a graphic medium (political cartoons). I can't believe this is even an issue given the number of times members here have posted similar images in threads that weren't even focused on political cartoons.

From

American Political Cartoons: an Introduction

Political cartoons are a unique creation--pictorial editorial and artistic social commentary.

http://www2.truman.e...h/cartoons.html

Example:

[웃 910]

Posting a portrait photograph that does not have any creative alterations, modifications or graphics, except for someone adding words beside or below the photograph - even if the words are funny - may qualify as a political commentary, but that does not make the photograph a political cartoon. It would be the same as if I posted an ordinary photograph of your face and typied below the photograph "Mr Fancypants likes to post on Visa Journey in his fancypants" . The addition of the words makes the photograph a commentary - it does not make it a cartoon, which by your posted definition is " a unique, pictorial, editorial and artistic creation with social commentary". Posting a basic portrait photograph and adding words does not make it a unique and artistic creation, even if it does have editorial and social commentary. Political commentary is fine, but does not necessarily qualify for a thread entitled 'political cartoons'.

Can we let these types of things slide or do they really need to be erased?

Edited January 23, 2012 by ☠

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Posting a portrait photograph that does not have any creative alterations, modifications or graphics, except for someone adding words beside or below the photograph - even if the words are funny - may qualify as a political commentary, but that does not make the photograph a political cartoon. It would be the same as if I posted an ordinary photograph of your face and typied below the photograph "Mr Fancypants likes to post on Visa Journey in his fancypants" . The addition of the words makes the photograph a commentary - it does not make it a cartoon, which by your posted definition is " a unique, pictorial, editorial and artistic creation with social commentary". Posting a basic portrait photograph and adding words does not make it a unique and artistic creation, even if it does have editorial and social commentary. Political commentary is fine, but does not necessarily qualify for a thread entitled 'political cartoons'.

Posting a photo of me with type print under it wouldn't qualify because I'm not a public figure running for office. We can argue what makes art, art, but this is splitting hairs. This forum was splintered from Off Topic to categorize anything construed as political or religious. By making a special case of strict topic within this forum where member's posts are removed that aren't deemed as on topic is incredibly inconsistent, unnecessary and disruptive to the enjoyment of this forum. Who is complaining? Who is asking for these things removed? This is beyond any sense of reasonability.

[웃 910]

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[웃 910]

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Mr. Fancypants wrote:

Posting a photo of me with type print under it wouldn't qualify because I'm not a public figure running for office. We can argue what makes art, art, but this is splitting hairs. This forum was splintered from Off Topic to categorize anything construed as political or religious. By making a special case of strict topic within this forum where member's posts are removed that aren't deemed as on topic is incredibly inconsistent, unnecessary and disruptive to the enjoyment of this forum. Who is complaining? Who is asking for these things removed? This is beyond any sense of reasonability.

We received a report and I responded to the report.

I am not disputing that the comments are political. They are. I am disputing that they are cartoons. My example - which removed the political 'smokescreen' from the issue - showed that posting a comment about an individual with a photograph of them does not make the post a cartoon - it makes it a commentary. Just because they are a political figure still does not turn a political commentary into a cartoon merely because they are political figures.

We had a lot of issues early on in this thread's history with people posting political commentary and campaign materials that were not cartoons. Some were removed and some were moved to a new thread entitled political campaigns. The thread starter at the time requested that only political cartoons be included in this thread. Nothing has changed.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Kathryn41

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

In this image, I would say the photograph is definitely adding to the commentary and would be construed as a political cartoon. FYI, a photograph can be construed as a cartoon in modern usage depending on how it is used (though I haven't seen Steven's images to determine where they stand on this issue)

Edited January 24, 2012 by Sousuke

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Yes, in this case I would agree. There is a creative element added and it is made to look like a poster. The two posts in question were just plain ordinary head shots- no borders, no graphics, nothing added- just the same sort of a photograph that would appear in a newspaper article about the individual pictured.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Going back and reviewing the two removed images, I agree that the second would fit into the above criteria - it is like a poster so I have returned it to the thread. The first still does not qualify as a cartoon.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Kathryn41

[one...two...tree 2,762]

We received a report and I responded to the report.

I am not disputing that the comments are political. They are. I am disputing that they are cartoons. My example - which removed the political 'smokescreen' from the issue - showed that posting a comment about an individual with a photograph of them does not make the post a cartoon - it makes it a commentary. Just because they are a political figure still does not turn a political commentary into a cartoon merely because they are political figures.

We had a lot of issues early on in this thread's history with people posting political commentary and campaign materials that were not cartoons. Some were removed and some were moved to a new thread entitled political campaigns. The thread starter at the time requested that only political cartoons be included in this thread. Nothing has changed.

Then for the sake of consistency and fairness, I am requesting from here out all threads are treated with the same criteria, where any post that deviates from the OP should be removed. I will be reporting every post I see that doesn't directly address the OP and expect the same level of moderation.

Edited January 24, 2012 by Mister Fancypants