With November
sixth quickly approaching, the general public is urgently predicting, debating,
and cursing the outcome of the presidential election. One hot topic of this
election is the controversial voter identification laws that have been passed
in several states, requiring prospective voters to show some sort of legal
identification. As of October 2012, thirty states have adopted these laws in
some form. The debate has spiked recently because of the upcoming election. Much
of the division in opinions about this law is between Democrats and
Republicans, so the opposing candidates naturally disagree. Dave Granlund, a
cartoonist for the New York Times and Chicago Tribune, argues that these laws
hinder legal voters; cartoonist Michael Ramirez, winner of two Pulitzer Prizes,
asserts that the voter I.D. laws protect against voter fraud. Whereas
Granlund’s comic “Voter I.D. laws” relies on metaphorical representation,
Ramirez’s cartoon “Picture ID Needed” relates and compares similar laws to more
effectively demonstrate that requiring voter identification is a logical step
to preserving democracy.
Granlund depicts a
maze named “New Voter I.D. Laws” into which an elderly couple is entering,
looking slightly confused. Making their way through the maze are several dozen
more citizens, all facing different directions and struggling to find the end
where they can “Vote Here.” Although Granlund’s comparison of the new laws to a
maze seems rational, it does not give any specific details. The audience does
not know exactly why or how the new laws create an obstacle to voters. By being
so general, Granlund loses credibility with his audience and doesn’t give them
a reason to convert to his side. By employing ethos or logos, this artist would
have a far greater impact on his audience.
On the other hand,
Ramirez’s cartoon skillfully influences the reader through comparison and
exemplification. He lists “Important Things You Need a Picture I.D. For” and
illustrates seven objects. These objects represent a situation in which a
picture I.D. is required, such as buying alcohol or cashing a check. The final
picture is a tombstone for a “potential voter” and the caption reads, “…but not
to vote for the most powerful man in the world,” meaning the president of the
United States. Ramirez clearly gives examples of similar laws that are
generally accepted and then demonstrates how they relate to the voter
identification laws. His logic may sway the audience of this cartoon with
reasoning and examples of related cases.
Dave Granlund and
Michael Ramirez both try to use comparison to voice their opinion, although
Granlund uses a metaphor while Ramirez shows relationships between common
ideas. The two artists also use realistic representations instead of a more
stylistic approach, such as a cartoon containing exaggerated body parts or
objects. However, Michael Ramirez undoubtedly has a greater effect on his
audience through his use of exemplification and logos. For readers of his
cartoons, then, there is one less topic to discuss before election day.


Nice job Kare-bear! I think you really understood what each cartoon was about, and you did an awesome job explaining what the purpose was of each cartoon to the reader. I agree that the second cartoon was more effective for sure- the motive and opinion of the artist was much clearer and his argument was much more effective. Again, overall good job!
ReplyDeleteI like how you incorporated Ethos, Logos, and Pathos. I don't quite agree with your comparisons. I personally believe that the first cartoon is much more effective largely because it states its point a bit more obviously. If the artist is trying to say that voting is really difficult and almost like a maze, then showing a maze with a bunch of lost people would effectively support his message through art. On the other hand, if the artist of the second cartoon is suggesting that voting should need an ID, then he should make it a bit more obvious what he is trying to say. Yes, he does capitalize and color the letters red, but the tombstone itself is tucked away on the bottom side which does not help to explain his purpose easier.
ReplyDeleteI think your interpretation of both the cartoons is quite accurate. However, I also agree with Martin in that the first one is slightly more effective because it's quite straightforward and easy to understand with its visual maze metaphor, whereas the composition of the second one is quite confusing because the examples are just placed randomly and do not lead the eye around properly. Composition is crucial to artwork that intends to send a message, and the second cartoon is very poorly organized, in my opinion.
ReplyDelete