English Political Caricature
THE purpose of this book, and it is a good one, is to present the Public life of Winston Churchill through the eyes of the world's cartoonists. If we are to assume that the compiler has combed every available cartoon source relevant to Sir Winston's career from September 27, 1900, up to June 20, 1954, and has not merely tacked together a handy selection in time to catch the Eightieth Birthday Market, then we must assess the 279 drawings by seventy-nine different artists which constitute this pictorial bio- graphy as the cream of artistic wit in caricature on one subject over half a century.
A great 'Aunt Sally' of infuriating individuality (and rewarding Physique), Winston Churchill comes out of the book with our sympathy—as a cartoon character who has been hard done by. He is dogged by pictorial vulgarity, bad likenesses, bad draughts- manship, bad temper, pomposity and a staggering lack of wit, from both supporters and .critics. The obvious exceptions are apparent enough to the least-informed artistic judgement, and they stand out in this collection like pubs in a desert.
In the half-hour that it took me to wander through the 250-odd Pages of this well-presented album I was filled with the utmost gloom. Here is a cross-section of English ephemeral caricature through five decades. Admittedly the selection sets out to 'pin- point [W. S. C.'s] chequered career through the eyes of the world's great cartoonists.' As it is, one-fifth (fifty-seven cartoons to be Precise) of the drawings in the book represent the rest of the World, and, with a few exceptions, these negate themselves with cliches which range from Pravda's Al Capone, having everything but filed teeth, to the slobbering but noble dummy of American Comic Cuts Caricature.
It is worth reminding ourselves that political caricature is, of necessity, a rapid and simple crystallisation of an idea. The rapier - thrust of well - timed pictorial ridicule can influence public opinion more certainly than the bludgeoning of a dozen analytical articles. But the hand behind the pen must be guided by a rare amalgam; it is not sufficient for a good cartoonist to he a competent artist with a sense of humour. He must enjoy a political prejudice that is narrow and strong enough to allow him to take a positive attitude. He must be a man with a whole- hearted conviction of his own 'rightness' (I almost said 'righteous- ness'), and must have clear enough vision and be sufficiently well-informed to comment authoritatively on almost any political eventuality within a few hours. He must laugh public opinion into what he believes it should be, and must good-humouredly destroy with their own weaknesses any who are distasteful to his purpose. He must be prophet and executioner. He must stand in judgement on his superiors with such enthusiasm and wit, his victims will wish to possess the original drawing to prove that at least they have a sense of humour.
How rare are these cartoonists! Their works shine like pearls in a pig's ear of witlessness and grotesquery that lacks the leaven of human understanding. The well-drawn, vicious caricatures are even more distasteful than the apologies of the wishy-washy draughtsman' who is prepared to put the cart before the 'oonist at the suggestion of his editor. Neither can have even inverted truth or conviction about them.
There is enough evidence in this oddly uneven collection of cartoons to prove that there have been only three or, at the most, four political cartoonists worthy of the name this century. No doubt the law of libel, in addition to the respectability of John Doyle and Leech, hurried on the decline of English caricature. But can it also be said to account for the fact that, besides losing its guts, caricature has also lost its convictions?
Previous page
