Graphic comedy: can we take a joke?

Karrie Fransman explores the problem with aggressive jokes.

By Karrie Fransman Published 31 August 2012

From rape jokes to mocking the disabled, the popularity of "shock comedy" provokes questions about comedians' ethics and sense of responsibility. Karrie Fransman, a graphic journalist, explores the issue. Click on the image to see it full screen:

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

View the discussion thread.

9 comments

Wed, 2012-09-05 09:28 — hugh markey (not verified)

Comedians just can't help it. After all they are human. No sooner do they attain national fame than they are hobnobbing with Royalty; not to mention slumming it up in palatial piles and conserving income and capital by using ingenious accountants.. Have you heard any of these breakers of social taboos mention any of the Royals in a scurrilous way? Now that is a social taboo all comedians recognize
We admired Bob Hope and Jack Benny for their talent, rich in every way. Chevy Chase, Bill Murray and all the National Lampoon family. Lenny Bruce, Stan Freberg... the list is endless.
Some of today's comedians act as if they are not interested in the filthy lucre and have more in the ethics bank than Max Miller( not funny).
We couldn't care less. Just be funny and don't even venture near Royalty.
We get it. "Show me the money!" Quite understandable.

Gagsters

Sat, 2012-09-01 21:21 — Dave Bruddles (not verified)

The gold standard for comedy, like pretty much any form of cultural endeavour, is it's adherence to aesthetic principles. In terms of comedy, this basically means that the performer has applied a few rules and elements, such as timing, wit, satire, surrealism, irreverance, pathos, ridule, observation or shock and skillfully arranged them into a harmonius whole which makes the audience laugh. Whether a joke is a good joke or bad joke depends on these principles, not on whether it offends the sensibilities of the time, or endorses or rejects a particular political viewpoint. So, even an offensive joke, be it racist or sexist or whatever, can be both funny and skillfully crafted. And, by the same token, listening to a comedian who shares your own political or ethical values will not be funny unless the comedian is skillful.
However, the truth is, that the vast majority of these jokes which pick on minorities or disabled or whatever, are not funny, but generally jokes which try and cover up the aesthetic deficincies of the comedian. The comedy proffered is funny because it puts the comedian and the audience in a superior position to the victims of the gag- basically, the way a bully would laugh when humiliates his victim. The reason they are able to fill stadiums is because it is lowest common denominator stuff- basically the gold standard for bad art.

With regards to this article, I don't feel it was very well written or incisive, and had a sophomoreish feel to it. I did glean one thing from the 'graphic journalism' format however- namely that Josie Long has transformed into an amorphous apricot sponge.

Mon, 2012-09-10 11:41 — Beatrice Eversholt (not verified)

It's really interesting to see an article in a different format for a change. It's all very well suggesting that satirical cartoonists become 'graphic journalists', but they clearly haven't had the idea or they would have been published! The New Statesman is a really interesting read precisely because it presents debate from perspectives that are not the norm. I find it shocking that posters below can assume that there is a legitimate voice for journalism, to which this does not adhere, whilst utterly missing the irony of their standpoint, given their sweeping comments about freedom of speech. For speech to be truly free, we need to open our minds up to accepting less traditional ways of doing things. Whilst Ms Fransman's style may not be to everyone's taste, the fact that it is different, and that it raises the questions and trusts a (presupposed) intelligent New Statesman reader to have the debate on their own time, is refreshing.

I am a big comedy fan and have been to conferences on this issue. The problem is defining offence - whose responsibility is it? Is it something that is given or taken? Does it have to be intentional for it to be offensive? Richard Herring's viewpoint was interesting on this. I won't attempt to quote him as I can't remember exactly what he said, but to paraphrase, he said it was an issue of power and voice and that something is unacceptably offensive if its object has no voice or power to respond. I think I'd agree, but the question is how to maintain the homogeneity and diversity of voices in comedy without veering towards offence and prejudice. I suppose the same could be said for journalism...

Mon, 2012-09-10 11:41 — Beatrice Eversholt (not verified)

I am a big comedy fan and have been to conferences on this issue. The problem is definining offence - whose responsibility is it? Is it something that is given or taken? Does it have to be intentional for it to be offensive? Richard Herring's viewpoint was interesting on this. I won't attempt to quote him as I can't remember exactly what he said, but to paraphrase, he said it was an issue of power and voice and that something is unacceptably offensive if its object has no voice or power to respond. I think I'd agree, but the question is how to maintain the homogeneity and diversity of voices in comedy without veering towards offence and prejudice. I suppose the same could be said for journalism...

Sat, 2012-09-01 12:26 — Gerry Reynolds (not verified)

I am offended that this poorly written article ever saw the light of day in order to justify such a badly drawn and poorly thought out cartoon.

Of all the Arts that the world has to offer - for me - Comedy - the ability of an artist to simply make people laugh - is the finest by a country mile.

The film "Sullivan's Travels" from the 1940's should be compulsory viewing for every journalist desperately seeking to fill their quota of words by creating stories of offence created by jokes who does not understand the role of comedy in society.

The vast majority of audiences consuming jokes at comedy events (both in person and on line) are not offended; and those few that allegedly are have no rights or grounds to complain. They have agreed to participate in the uncensored exchange of the artiste's ideas with their own in advance.

If they cannot distinguish between an artistic performance and reality it is not the artist's fault.

Do audiences have a duty of care to protect themselves from offence. I would argue that people should not consume comedy that they know will offend them and if they do - the artiste has no responsibility for any offence caused. It is like entering a butchers, buying and eating a pork sandwich and then bringing up your religious beliefs afterwards.

Sat, 2012-09-01 11:29 — Adam Sheldon (not verified)

What is a "graphic journalist"? On the evidence of this piece, someone who decorates her poorly-written prose with a few ill-crafted cartoons (Carr, Gervais and Long are barely recognisable here). If the graphic element made a point which words alone could not, the idea might be valid; as it is, Fransman's article is just rather feeble. Why not commission more regular work from the UK's top political cartoonists, which would add real graphic muscle to the Statesman's contents?

Fri, 2012-08-31 14:10 — Dorian (not verified)

Has the person that made this ever even watched Frankie Boyle or Ricky Gervais? They both mock the powerful, Frankie is more left-wing than the NS in fact. You can pick at certain points in their comedy and paint them as conservatives? The world is not this place full of happiness and puppies it is horrible and people call each other names. Comedians such as Frankie represent the people that watch his shows.

Comedy has it's origins in the working class, Richard Pryor, Billy Connolly and Lenny Bruce to name a few. The creator of this graphic seems to want comedians like Michael Mcintyre with their faux-middle class-comedy. Terrible article.

Fri, 2012-08-31 16:36 — Scott Capurro fan (not verified)

Has Dorian actually read this article, or is this an ironic example of the kind of knee-jerk defense that Fransman refers to?

Fransman acknowledges particular "jokes" made by Boyle and Gervais, but she does not generalize about all of their material, or their political leanings. Last time I looked the working class were not being oppressed by Rebecca Adlington, Katie Price's disabled son, or anyone else with Down's syndrome.

Fransman does mention several comedians who may well align themselves with the tradition Dorian mentions: Stewart Lee, Josie Long, and Robin Ince, all of whom have found ways to satirize political ideologies. I don't think any of these comedians would claim to admire Michael Mcintyre all that much. The point is not that all shocking comedy is bad, but that sometimes it is the laziest and least intelligent way of making people laugh.

Last time I went to a comedy gig almost everyone laughed when a guy with a guitar made a casual joke about gang rape, but the majority went on to be deeply offended by the openly Gay comedian who told a story about consensual sex and light bondage with a hirsute Muslim. It's this kind hypocrisy that deserves to be criticized.