Hiya, Vivek Menezes' points on Charlie Hebdo are all valid and respectable, and have been made by many, the world over. And that's exactly the problem: Charlie Hebdo was and is not meant for 'the world over'. It is a very parochial French rag, ment and made for a very specific, local audience. But in the age of the Internet, news travels fast, also within France (before the 'new media' probably no Muslim in France would have heard of Charlie, and hence wouldn't have been offended). This, and (much) more is explained at length in an interview with Luz, the surviving cartoonist, which I enjoin you to read for context and perspective: Cheers, p+5D!
............................................................................ http://www.lesinrocks.com/2015/01/10/actualite/luz-eyes-us-weve-become-symbol-11545347/ Luz : All eyes are on us, weve become a symbol (January 10, 2015) A collective execution wiped out Charlie Hebdos editorial board. Faced with such horror, the slogan Je suis Charlie has become the flag of liberty and resistance brandished against obscurantism. Luz, emblematic cartoonist for the weekly newspaper, speaks, for the first time, since the deaths of his friends and on the eve of Sundays massive rally. Luz has been a cartoonist at Charlie Hebdo for twenty years. He is alive today because January 7th marks his birthday and he was running late for the satirical papers weekly editorial meeting. Along with the other survivors, he is now planning the next issue of Charlie Hebdo to be published on January 14th. Exceptionally, one million copies will be printed. For the next few days, he will go to work at the premises of Libération, currently housing the editorial team, to discuss angles, subjects and its cover. He, and other cartoonists, will recount in cartoons the massive Republican rally on Sunday. The day after the terrorist attack which killed his friends, mentors, his family, Luz tells us of his doubts, his fears and his anger. Grief-stricken, he wonders if he will be able to draw again after the awful events of January 7th 2015. He provides a testimony which goes against official lines. The publishing of Charlie Hebdo next Wednesday is fuelled with national and political stakes. What is it like to have this responsibility in such terrible conditions? Luz When I started drawing, I always thought we were safe, as we were drawing pseudo Mickey Mouse. Now, after the deaths, the shoot outs, the violence, everything has changed. All eyes are on us, weve become a symbol, just like our cartoons. Humanité headlined Liberty has been assassinated above the cover I did on Houellebecq that, even if theres some substance there, is a quip at Houellebecq. A huge symbolic weight, that doesnt exist in our cartoons and is somewhat beyond us, has been put on our shoulders. Im one amongst many whos finding that difficult. What do you mean by symbolic weight? In 2007, when the caricatures of Muhammad were published in the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten, we were considered as either troublemakers or white knights, defending the freedom of the press. In 2011, when our offices were burnt down, we were yet again, white knights. In 2012, a completely idiotic film about Muslims was released (Innocence of Muslims), we had cartoons of Muhammad in Charlie, as usual. We were once again dangerous troublemakers whose cartoons resulted in the closing of embassies and spread terror amongst French citizens abroad. The media made a mountain out of our cartoons, when on a worldwide scale, we are merely a damn teenage fanzine. This fanzine has become a national and international symbol, but it was people that were assassinated, not the freedom of speech! People who sat in an office and drew cartoons. Do you mean the nature of cartoons has changed ? Since the cartoons of Muhammad, the irresponsible nature of cartoons has gradually disappeared. Since 2007, our cartoons are read literally. People or cartoonists, like Plantu, believe we shouldnt do drawings on Muhammad because they go viral on the Internet. Therefore we have to be careful what we do in France as someone may react in Kuala Lumpur or somewhere else. Its unbearable. Why ? Since 2007, Charlie has been scrutinized and made to carry responsibility. Each cartoon may possibly be read as having political stakes or expressing internal politics. Those stakes are laid on our shoulders. But were simply a newspaper that is bought, opened then closed. If people post our cartoons on Internet, if the media highlight certain of our cartoons, thats their responsibility. Not ours. Except that its the exact opposite thats happening. We are being made to carry a symbolic responsibility that doesnt figure in Charlies cartoons. Unlike the Anglo-Saxons or Plantu, Charlie fights against symbolism. Doves of peace and other metaphors of a world at war arent our cup of tea. We work on details, specific points in correlation with French humour and our way of analyzing things à la française. Cartoons that can sometimes be crass or punk Sometimes goofy, other times crass, punk for sure. Sometimes it doesnt work, other times its simply beautiful. Charlie is the combination of a group of very different people, who all draw cartoons. The nature of the cartoon changed depending on which cartoonist was working on it, using his or her style, drawing on previous political or artistic influences. But this modesty and diversity of expression no longer exists. Each cartoon is seen to having been done by all of us. In the end, the symbolic weight is exactly what Charlie has always worked against: destroying symbols, breaking down taboos, bursting bubbles of fantasy. Its wonderful that people are giving us their support but its going against Charlies cartoons. You have become the flag bearers of national unity. This unanimity is useful to Holland in helping strengthen the nation. Its useful to Marine Le Pen to ask to reinstate the death penalty. Symbolism in every sense can be used by everyone to do whatever they like. Even Poutine could welcome doves of peace open heartedly. Thats precisely the difference with Charlies cartoons, as you couldnt do whatever you fancied. When we mock, in detail, obscurantisms, when we ridicule political attitudes, we are not becoming a symbol. Charb, whom I consider as the Jean-Marc Reiser of the late 20th/ early 21st Century, made comment on society. He drew what was under the gloss, slightly ugly people with big noses. Right now were covered in gloss and Im going to find that difficult. What do you mean ? Is the moment right to be publishing Charlie in such an emotional state? Is it appropriate to do it quickly in response to the symbolism of the attack? I wonder. Replying to symbolism with symbolism, thats not what Charlie does. Last night, I came up with an idea for a cartoon that Ill probably never do: stains on the floor representing where the victims lay, with a pair of glasses strewn in a corner and a bubble saying hahaha, on a black background. Its not a great idea, because its an idea imposed by symbolism. So your question is how can you go on drawing after that ? Yes. And also, how can I draw within that context. Within this fantasized Charlie that were being plunged into. How will Charlie Hebdo continue ? Its going to be complicated. For all the reasons Ive just mentioned and because we will have to work without our graphic, political, ethical, militant personalities: Charb, Tignous, Honoré and all the others. During the difficult moments, when caught up in the fantasy of irresponsibility, we shared the weight. Today, theres only Catherine, Willem, Coco and myself (and Riss who is wounded). How will we manage to go beyond this symbolic injunction with only four styles? (Jul, who had left Charlie, has come to lend a hand on the next issue). People are volunteering cartoons. But will they capture the spirit of Charlie ? Our spirit has been around for 22 years. This paper exists because of all of its members. Have you always felt it necessary to caricature the Prophet or have there been times when you thought you were being caught in a trap ? The funny thing is that we continued caricaturing Muhammad after 2007. After the triple controversy 2007, 2011, 2012, Charb and Zineb El-Rhazoui went as far as publishing The life of Muhammad in two volumes. It didnt cause a stir. We won. Charb wanted to go all the way with this project, standing tall in his hiking boots (laughter) and his ugly military pants he loved so much. Charb believed we could continue to overcome taboos and symbols. But today, we are the symbol. How can you destroy a symbol when it is yourself? I dont know. Neither do I. I wont find the answer this week and Im not sure I ever will. We will publish Charlie. Im going to force myself. Im going to think about my dead friends, knowing they didnt fall for France! Today, it seems that Charlie fell for the freedom of speech. The simple fact is that our friends died. The friends we loved and whose talent we admired so very much. On BFMTV, a visibly distraught, Jeannette Bougrab, Charbs companion, said they merit to be buried in the Panthéon. Charlie stands for everything opposed to that. And being buried in the Panthéon didnt change anything for Marie Curie! It would make for a beautiful ceremony I didnt go to the spontaneous rally on January 7th. People sang the national anthem. Were talking about Charb, Tignous, Cabus, Honoré, Wolinski: they wouldve scorned this kind of attitude. People express themselves however they like but the Republic mustnt turn into a hysterical mourner. That would be a shame. I imagine that would be a reason youd like to record, in drawing, tomorrows rally ? I have no idea what itll be like. We dont head out with that kind of a priori, we take it in and work with whats offered up. Therell no doubt be beautiful images, tears, joy and maybe some absurdity. At the same time, it will show the changing nature of Charlie: the people who are supporting us now that we are dead, who didnt always read us, didnt always follow. Im not angry at them. Our aim was never to convince the entire population. Last November, Charb launched an appeal for people to subscribe to save Charlie. They were lonely times Wed been alone for quite some time, since the third Muhammad affair. These affairs had created so much fantasy around the danger of Charlies atheism, its Islamophobia. We were simply joyful unbelievers. All of those that died were joyful unbelievers. And now, theyre nowhere. Just like everyone else. What do you think of Manuel Valls not inviting Marine Le Pen to Republican rally? I dont give a shit. Do you feel that theres an attempt to save Charlie ? Honestly, what is there to save? Now, theres momentum. And in a year, what will remain of this rather progressive momentum for the freedom of speech? Will financial help be offered to private press? Will people oppose the closure of newspapers? Newspaper stands? Will people buy newspapers? Will anything remain of this momentum? Maybe. Maybe not. How will you work ? Well continue drawing our merry little men. Our job, as cartoonists, is to create a cartoon around these merry little men, to transpose the idea that we are all merry little men and that we endeavour to make things work as best we can. Thats what cartoons are about. Those killed were simply people who drew merry little men. And merry little women. So its too much to ask you merry little men to save the Republic ? Exactly. Interview by Anne Laffeter Translation by Nick Haughton
