As you all know, I am an illustrator and I think the cartoon ‘hurts’. I have a good sense of humor but I didn’t really find it ‘funny’ in the traditional sense. What was my reaction? I think I might have let out a low chuckle and then realised it was in bad taste. What can I say? I think it is ‘clever’, I think it is very ‘creative’, but yes it is also very offensive (to some people). However…
Maybe the point is that actual people are suffering but all the media coverage takes pains to point out that it’s the home of a famous pasta dish. [source]
I think that’s all Charlie Hebdo is trying to point out here. That the media fixates on why the town is famous, because of its Amatriciana pasta. What has that got to do with anything about a quake or deaths?
Now it seems the Italian magistrate is going to try to sue the author. But really, good luck with that case. It’s in a different country!
Maybe if Italians didn’t want to see it, then they should have censored it. Even though it is in bad taste, it is still considered ‘art’. And ‘art’ is seen as being even more important than free ‘speech’. Artists have lawyers too you know…
For example, I find trophy hunters offensive. Can I sue them? I can try. But how far am I going to get?
Also, I think the real issue should be: why did the buildings fall? That’s the real issue. Discussion shouldn’t be about some silly drawing. There should be an enquiry as to why 600 year old buildings survived but modern “Earthquake proof” shools collapsed. Perhaps Hebdo’s second cartoon is more appropriate?
So instead of focusing on the real, difficult issues facing construction in Italy, everyone attacks Hebdo like the scapegoat instead. Why? Probably because it’s one hundred times easier. Sorry, but suing a cartoonist in another country is worse behaviour in my opinion than asking why your own buildings have fallen. Shame on you Italy! If you want to make a better future, then perhaps focus on asking Japan how to make truly Earthquake-proof buildings?