The “job” of an artist, whether visual, audio, performing or written, is to present something that makes people think. Although two people may read the same book or poem, watch the same play, or view the same picture at the same moment, because of their own life experiences, attitudes, beliefs, or perceptions, they may not walk away from the experience with the same results. Where one cries, the other may laugh. Where one sees something horrible the other may not. Where one sees a theme, or gets the point, the other may not.

The artist never tells the audience what their work means as that leaves only one meaning, and this could lose people who might have appreciated the work had they been able to arrive at their on meaning depending on what in the work “spoke” to them.

A poet will never tell you what the poem means, but will ask what the reader thinks it means.

If the audience totally misses any meaning, or cannot see the point of the work, that person should simply walk away without asking the artist to modify the work so the audience can understand the assumed single meaning.

To do so would force one viewer’s interpretation onto everyone while suppressing theirs.

In a recent blog I addressed the cheers Trump had received from the conservative Jewish group to whom he spoke in Las Vegas when he claimed the Central Americans seeking asylum is a scam and they should be sent back, drawing attention to the sad similarities of people in the 30s and the events of the S.S. St Louis in 1939. That a group of American Jews, regardless of their political affiliation, would support similar treatment toward the asylum seekers struck me as horrendous.

My intention was to provoke thought on this issue.

However, when I posted my blog on a national website, as I often do with blogs from my page, out of the 31 comments, rather than discuss the actual topic, half of the comments totally ignored the disturbing issue and fixated on one detail in the accompanying cartoon.

There was much discussion about what the character on the dock was wearing, and even though some stated that their interpretation of the cartoon could have two meanings depending on how the head covering was interpreted, something that is exactly what a political cartoon is supposed to do, many of the comments demanded I “clarify” as to which interpretation was the correct one, modify the cartoon so they would not have to think, or remove it as there obviously was no single meaning.

I did not feed the trolls but responded to a direct message on that site asking me to read the comments, I had, and take the appropriate steps of either modifying or removing the cartoon, replying that the picture was open to interpretation and is as it is.

Popular Science ended the comments section after articles because “Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant’s interpretation of the news story itself”.

They found through an experiment that even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader’s perception of a story, and I refused to enter an unnecessary back and forth between blogger and commenter which I have seen in other outlets lead to distraction from the message, usurpation of the blogger’s original intent by someone who does not offer their own writings but leeches on to that of others, or degenerates into personal attacks from the commenter on the blogger.

As Popular Science had found when it decided to end the comment section after articles, such “discussions” drive potential readers away from what they otherwise would have learned from, or end up discussing not the content of an article, but the opinion of the distracting commenter.

Often this is because someone, rather than present a cogent opinion on a topic, would rather it not be dealt with and drives others from an exchange of ideas.

Remembering the issue was who was applauding Trump’s comments on asylum seekers, a topic that about half the commenters dealt with, these are the comments of the thread that showed that others got lost on a detail, assumed a political cartoon is a faithful representation of events, much as a photograph is, demanded the cartoon be redrawn to their specifications or it be removed, and did everything possible to avoid the issue even if the comment acknowledged what the topic was:

“I couldn’t help but notice that you drew the character on the dock saying “SORRY. NO!” as Jewish (as this person is wearing a kippah), and I’m guessing you did this in reaction to the shameful behavior of the Jews at the Republican Jewish Coalition gathering recently, with regards to their exuberant reaction to Twitler’s heartless comments about asylum seekers.  And so I felt compelled to point out, that this is FAR from representative of all Jews.”

“Here- this is a more genuine Jewish stance…

Reposted tweet: Rabbi Jill Zimmerman:I have no words for my sadness to see a clip of trump mocking #AsylumSeekers in front of the Republican Jewish Coaltion, while they laughed. Only tears. They need to all go back to Hebrew school to relearn Jewish values of embracing the stranger. Pre-Passover no less”

Then the train went off the rails.

• “This is an excellent observation, Sandra.  Hard to tell what the symbolism is of the garb of the young boy on the dock.  Perhaps the diarist might find a different old cartoon?
• “It isn’t an old cartoon, and the diarist didn’t “find” it- he drew it himself, recently. So, Mr. Quigley- I’d like to request that your re-draw your cartoon, making that guy on the dock not be Jewish (and I’ll make you a deal: if you update this diary with a revised drawing, then I’ll rec & tip this diary).”
• “I think it’s a cap, not a kippah — there seems to be a visor, though it’s faint and small.”
• “That could be a cap, but I’m skeptical (I think what you’re seeing as a visor, is just his hair).  And the hair in front of his ear, looks a lot like a peyes to me…”
• “No, I think the visor is the part sticking up — it matches the angle of the cap or kippah or whatever. Of course I can imagine it as a MAGA cap.”
• “What would really be helpful here, would be for the diarist himself to speak up, and clarify as to what identity he intended for that character to be- but the diarist evidently is “AWOL” (oh well…)”
• “You’re right, that should be clarified- but since this diarist has 49 tip jars out of the past 50 comments, probably not likely to happen.
• “I’ve decided that I’m going to give him one more day, and if he still doesn’t respond to these comments, then I’ll send him a kosmail message (but I’m still not very optimistic that he’ll respond even after that- I think your assessment of him is probably correct…)”
• “I took it for a kippah, too, which was puzzling, I thought I’d missed part of the story. It could be a beanie, I don’t know which time period those were from, but it would be considerably less ambiguous if it was re-drawn.”
• “That was my first thought, too—a cap not a kippah/yarmulke—though I agree w/ those who just see hair in front instead of a visor. The main driver for my take was that it appeared to be striped and while I’ll admit that what I think I know about Judaism wouldn’t come close to filling a kippah, I’ve never seen a striped one (although a quick Google-search suggests to me it’s more possible than I’d thought). Since the newcomers are on the S.S. St. Louis, I assumed the cartoon to be from the 1930s or, since being informed its current, that it’s intended to be set in the 1930s. I can (and do) interpret the cartoon two ways for it to convey what I believe the diarist intends, as evidenced by their accompanying text. The male on the dock (I can’t decide if I think it’s a boy or a man) is rejecting those on the ship and either A) is NOT Jewish himself and represents the broad 1930s (white, anti-Semitic) American public or B2) IS Jewish himself and represents the current attitudes of (Russian) Agent Orange and his supporters and enablers, including those of the Republican Jewish Coalition. [On review of this whole comment, I had another fairly-terrible thought. Surely, it’s not a striped kippa—fabricated from the infamous garb worn by those imprisoned at concentration/extermination camps (which would have occurred mostly after the rejection of the S.S. St. Louis)—and worn by a current-day Republican Jewish Coalition member (cartoon-magically) transported back in time to be able to turn back his own kind!? While this one is much worse, to me, either of the options that assume the rejecter-character is Jewish, turning away (thus dooming) other Jews, is a little too close to the “Jews-killed-Jesus” crap that anti-Semites have pedaled for centuries, for my comfort.]”

A man who experiences a low measure of testosterone will be less inclined to buy viagra no prescription secretworldchronicle.com experience the ill effects of impotency. Unfortunately, men who take nitrate drugs for chest pain, also referred to as angina, should not take any medical prescription for supplying the viagra professional price. generic cialis no rx These causes are the ones that trigger an erection. There are many online stores which stock this cipla tadalafil 20mg generic drug, but it is very important to know how erectile dysfunction develops.

• While I appreciate the diarist/cartoonist’s message and technical execution of the drawing, it’s clearly too unclear if it needs this much exertion to interpret properly. I agree that Joe Quigley would do himself and the rest of us a real favor to provide a revised cartoon or more explanation for this one.”
• “Hey Joe, who’s that kid that you drew on the dock?  What’s he wearing on his head?  Is he supposed to be Jewish?  I suspect that this is a cartoon you drew in connection with Trump’s crazy-ass speech before that Jewish Republican group that drew cheers.  If so, the cartoon kind of makes sense.  But the cartoon doesn’t fit with this diary.  Indeed, it wrongly suggests that Jews were somehow responsible for crime of the rejection of the St. Louis.  You should delete it.  Alternatively, site admins should do something about the appearance of this diary in the community spotlight section at least until the cartoon is replaced with something more apt.”
• “I’m going to leave my recommendation of the diary intact, but make it clear here that I’m recommending the text only and NOT the (hopefully, original) illustrative cartoon. FWIW, I’ve been to the Holocaust Museums in DC, Houston, Alburqurque , and St, Louis: found them all excellent in their own ways; and heartily recommend each of them (and look forward to seeing others, as possible).”

THE FIGURE ON THE DOCK?

Not the topic.