Showing posts with label Ken Pyne. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ken Pyne. Show all posts

Tuesday, 18 December 2012

470: Gay Santa Claus

Ken Pyne,
“Punch” 2 December 1981

From the early days of what we would now call multiculturalism, this cartoon offers all the possible bleeding-heart heart liberal alternatives to a traditional Father Christmas. The joke is marrying all these different instances of positive discrimination to harmless Father Christmas, rather than attempting to show what a gay Santa or a CND Santa might look like.

From “Santas for All”
Illustrated by Gerry Gersten
“Playboy”, December 1966

Whereas this is nothing but festive offerings to satisfy various contemporary steretoypes. Amidst the surfers and black power protestors, here's Swish Kringle.

Similarly, you can look at Richard Ingrams camping it up as Santa in “Private Eye”, December 1963

“Playboy”, December 1967

Just asking each other for their Christmas presents, or something more?

Monday, 21 December 2009

343: Superman


by Ken Pyne
in “Punch” 13 October 1980

There are sizeable chunks of the internet devoted to teasing gay meanings out of old Superman and Batman comics, and of course there was all Fredric Wertham’s obsessing in the 1950s, but actual gay cartoons or gags about superheroes don’t seem to have really cropped up with much regularity until the Ambiguously Gay Duo in the mid-1990s.

Since this is by Ken Pyne, it’s inevitable that the mood of this is disillusionemnt rather than jokes about lycra-clad muscled fetishism.

Wednesday, 4 November 2009

314: Days of Future Past

A rather feeble title to show how ideas of the slightly comic idea of gay integration have now been overtaken by fact.
During the previous 10-15 years from the mid-60s onwards there had been a continuous development in the public’s awareness of homosexuals. At first it was the public just getting used to the idea that homosexuality existed, and then the existence of actual gay men. Of course, homosexuals were always someone, somewhere, and, to be honest, something else (Terry Southern syndrome). Then came Gay Lib and Gay pride, as gay men insisted that they weren’t ashamed of their sexuality and were just like everyone else (the general trend of sitcoms during the ‘70s). Then the was the growing awareness of homosexuals as a community, of the gay scene with a separate gay life entrenched in the major cities (hence films like “The Ritz”, “Saturday Night at the Baths”). Accompanying this, the actual practices of a sexual identity start to overtake all the sissy clichés, and gay couples start popping up in films and sketches. By the end of the ‘70s gay men have an established identity. They are a part of a society, but are not yet integrated within society. Hence all those jokes about ultra-leftist tokenism with jokes about gay centres, gay Santas, etc (which I find I haven’t posted yet)
These cartoons show the next stage during the 1980s of changes in modern attitudes towards homosexuality, as the typical social trappings of heterosexual life are extended to and overlaid onto gay men and couples. So the joke here is - isn’t it slightly funny when homosexual couples do exactly the same things as straight couples? Of course, some 25 years later it’s impossible to look at these cartoons un-ironically, since inclusive assumptions about gay life are now all part of modern life. Whereas this cartoon by Handelsman from 1973 is about how futuristically unlikely gay marriage would be.
Of course gay magazines had been running these sorts of cartoons since the mid/late-70s, but that’s another thing entirely.


by Gahan Wilson
in “Playboy” June 1980
The one chief’s distaste is a way to put a handle on what is otherwise just a gay wedding cake. A gay wedding cake isn’t quite enough of a joke to stand on its own without the tag line about time’s changing.


by Tony Husband
in “Private Eye” 24 April 1986
Either cluelessness or an inability to confront the matter head on by the manager.


by Ken Pyne
in “Private Eye” 24 August 1984


by Kipper Williams
in “Private Eye” 22 September 1982


by Tony Husband
in “Private Eye” 8 February 1985

Acceptance here is comic because it is nervous and fumbled, and overcast by second-thoughts. Is this right? Can this be right? is the message of these cartoons. Unless explicitly emotionally-wrought any gag cartoon character will look self-possessed. These gay characters, deliberately not gay caricatures therefore casually inhabit these little worlds, and so only the two characters in the Husband cartoon suffer the embarrassment we’ve all experienced at the hands of a well-meaning but inept associate. These cartoons are the first indication of a trend of social development which when mirrored in comedy reaches ludicrous fruition in Harry Enfield’s “Modern Dad” sketches some 15 years later.


by Spencer
in “Punch” 7 July 1982


by Marc Boxer
in “Private Eye” 22 October 1985
Gay men means cartoonist have a new tool in their array of adultery gags. An element in these particular cartons is the belief that aftershave was really for poofs.

Oh, and one final thought these cartoons elicit.

Piss on “The New Yorker”.

Most of these shouldn’t have been out of place in “The New Yorker”. Indeed, subsequent cartoons in “The New Yorker” have covered the same territory, making much the same jokes. It’s just that “The New Yorker” cartoons are at least 10-15 years later than the ones I’ve shown you – which isn’t necessarily the cartoonist’s fault. Whether you think the cartoons above are good or bad, “The New Yorker” lacked the balls to run any gay-themed cartoons until about 1993. This one from the end of 1992, merely a toe dipped in topical waters, is possibly the first properly gay-themed cartoon in “The New Yorker.”
Bear in mind that “Private Eye” and “Playboy” had been publishing gay cartoons since the beginning of the ‘60s, and even “Punch” and “Mad”, with their particular audiences, had followed suit by the end of the ‘60s, while “National Lampoon” had started in 1970 and never blanched at any gay gag. In different ways, editorial and strip cartoonists in popular newspapers and journals in America and Britain made individual forays on a case-by-case basis in the ‘70s and ‘80s. (And that’s before you even think about TV, radio, LPs and films.) The gay cartoonist William Haefeli, who has since produced a significant percentage of “The New Yorker”’s gay gags, with a career of twenty years in almost every major magazine, didn’t begin appearing in “The New Yorker” until 1998 with the appointment of a new cartoons editor, Bob Mankoff.
Was it cowardice, bourgeois distaste, or simply polite consideration for an oppressed minority? Whichever way you look at it, homosexuals were comedically unprintable in the pages of “The New Yorker”, one of the major venues for cartoons, until just over fifteen years ago (coinciding with the appointment of Tina Brown as the editor of “The New Yorker”.) Since Lee Lorenz was “The New Yorker”’s cartoon editor from 1973 until 1998, it’s fairly obvious who didn’t grow a fucking pair until his last five years in post.

Sunday, 1 November 2009

311: Sing If You’re Sad To Be Gay

"Gay used to be one of the most agreeable words in the language. Its appropriation by a notably morose group is an act of piracy." - Arthur Schlesinger, 1971

One of the side effects of the popular adoption of the word “gay” to describe homosexuals was that the word also opened several new avenues for casual jokes about homosexuals. There was the lazy tactic of employing a camp gesture or mannerism every time the word “gay” happened to be used, a conspicuously limp wrist or bitchy “ooooh”ing. The other tactic, not necessarily humorous, but often employed by conservatives was to protest that homosexuals had hijacked “gay”, that “they’ve taken away our lovely word”. So the next step after that was to complain that “gay” men didn’t seem at all gay. That homosexuals were in fact the opposite of gay. Demanding rights and equality, gay men are all so angry, or strident, or depressed. They were no longer funny, silly, delightful and trivial, which had previously made them at least a bit acceptable. There may also be some implicit mockery that being homosexual is actually a more miserable condition, and that “gay” is just a pretence.


from “Auberon Waugh’s Diary”
by Auberon Waugh
illustration by Nicholas Bentley
in “Private Eye” 10 January 1975

The comment about Enoch is a reference to the British politician Enoch Powell, who gave an educated voice to racist fears about immigrants. So Waugh employs racism, misogyny and a little homophobia, but each is somewhat ironically and allusively played off of each other, while under the cover of Waugh making a pretence to liberal understanding.
Bentley does capture a look of weary disdain in his homosexual’s face. Although really he’s only drawn the one figure several times in different attire, with long, curving bouufant hair, and slightly casually kicked up heels.


by J.B. Handelsman
in “Playboy” January 1978
Most of the patrons of this gay bar look more like fashion models than gay men of the period, but if you assume that gay men are fashionable then it’s easier to copy a few models than have to think about what you really have to depict. I really don’t know about the neck scarves though. Although right in the background there is a more burly type and even a black man.


by Ken Pyne
in “Punch” 14 April 1982
Of course Gay Pride is the magic phrase in this cartoon, with all of its social connotations. It is a typical Ken Pyne cartoon, since most of his straight characters are also normally miserable and lamenting their condition. So nothing actually denigratory here. You’ll notice most of the men have earrings in this bar. Whether that’s because of fashion, or merely a way of indicating effeminacy, I can’t be sure. The main figure in stripy trousers and hat could probably have been drawn at any point in the ten years previous. I’m a bit dubious about the bell bottoms and lapels as well.


by Michael Heath
in “The Spectator” 25 September 1982
Just your usual sombre Heath-man. Nothing even faintly gay. Which is rather the point.