I’m a firm believer in the fact that sometimes people look way to far into things. People can’t just let an apple be an apple. Instead it has to be something deep and meaningful and somehow becomes a representation of life and the way the world works. No, more often then not it’s just a fruit. I think the same applies here for the graphic “Je Suis Charlie”. I think it is the way it is because when people hear the name Charlie, they think Charlie Brown. Charlie Hebdo is a cartoon publisher and Charlie Brown is a famous cartoon so it would make sense to pair them together. Since Charlie Brown is usually happy and trying to kick a football, and the attack on Charlie Hebdo isn’t happy at all, the artist made Charlie Brown look old and depressed.
If it does have a deeper meaning, it could be that the artist made Charlie Brown looked old and depressed to show that the whole situation is depressing and isn’t something you would expect in 2015. The depressed part could be that when 12 people are killed for something they said or wrote, it’s not a fun time. Freedom of speech is one of the most important things you can have and is a way to express yourself and your views. You should be able to give your opinion on something and not have to worry about being killed over it. Charlie Brown being older than he is usually portrayed could indicate that times are changing and since this is 2015 you would think you wouldn’t have to worry about things like this. Then again the artist could’ve made Charlie Brown look the way he does to avoid copyright problems, but who knows.
The Gamer 2.0
SleepyCat
Coffee Lover 03
doglover7025
Snowman10
excellentstudent27
Gymrat
hockeyfan
holistic25
ilovebeesss
ilovemydog
The Gamer
Naturechild101
BreakingBad45
ravensfan8
temporal111
thatpersonoverthere
toetio
username1132005
Calm&Patient
webbwrestler135
Counterintuitive Spring 2024 
Please categorize correctly, mopar
LikeLike
This is not the grade you want, mopar. Revise or ask for feedback, but don’t let this stand.
LikeLike
feedback requested
Feedback provided. —DSH
LikeLike
OK, Mopar. I’m disappointed that you didn’t revise this when you had the chance, but I’m here for feedback. Maybe you’ll still have time for revisions before our conference.
P1. Nobody needs to be a believer in “the fact,” mopar.
—You mean “I firmly believe that people look way TOO far into things.”
Leave “the fact” out of it. Better yet:
—I firmly believe people over-analyze simple things: an apple is an apple. Or, as Freud said, “Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar.”
—then/than error
—Quotation punctuation error
OK. Content. You were asked to examine three choices.
1. An artist drew an aged, disgruntled, seedy Charlie Brown.
2. A designer combined the drawing with the slogan “Je Suis Charlie.”
3. A professor selected the combination of elements as a header for his class.
Which one are you critiquing in P1, mopar? You say the artist made Charlie Brown look old and depressed (that would be 1), because Charlie Hebdo and Charlie Brown share a name (that would be 2). Are both choices based on the coincidence? Did one person make both choices? For the same reason?
If you don’t want to admit there’s anything there to analyze, then critique the appropriateness of the artist’s choice and the designer’s choice. If an artist draws Homer Simpson taking Lisa from behind, that’s a crude artist’s choice. If a home-school agency adopts it as a logo, that’s a very different choice. You can’t say an apple is just an apple in that case. Same deal here. The cartoonists who were massacred at Charlie Hebdo deliberately provoked their audience with crude drawings of Muhammad taking it from behind. Look them up. They’re some bad apples.
P2. My personal take is that these specific terror attacks are just the sort of thing we can expect from 2015 on.
—violates 2nd person ban
—not a fun time?
—violates 2nd person ban again, 3 times
—violates 2nd person ban again, 4 times
So, that’s it? Charlie Brown should be allowed to kick the football without worrying that Lucy will yank it away at the last second? By the time Charlie is 75, he should be able to draw what he wants without worrying about being machine-gunned at work?
Humor me, mopar. Pretend the choices have meaning.
OR!
Strenuously defend your position that all three actors are being capricious and, worse, exploitative. The artist is stealing a well-known and beloved image to snag some cheap notoriety, for example. The designer figures he has nothing to lose by stealing the cartoon and will let the viewers decide what the pairing of Brown and Hebdo means, while looking smart. The professor (who might be the designer) presented the inscrutable combination merely as a prompt to coerce his students into expending some energy on a critique.
But take a strong stand.
Grade Code 0Y3
Grades are decoded at Professor Conferences
LikeLike