excellent!

azadeh

I am NOT from south Tehran and if I was I would NOT be ashamed and say it. HOWEVER I am sorry to say I think this is rather insulting to families from south Tehran.

amirkabear4u:

There is a relatively abstract and general idea behid the cartoon; it should *not be interpreted *literally*. Plus, it is in the nature of cartoons to be outrageous and irreverent. This cartoon is expressing the idea that the economic sanctions are hurting the most vulnerable social layers of society, leaving the life standard of the rich (including the leading elite) intact (taking a trip to Shoal, etc). It was with the conviction that the scene of a "poor" family from "south of Tehran" eating a raw gold fish or the sprouts from any Haft-Seen would be *an impossibility* that I drew this. It is also rather a *cliche* that people   from south of Tehran are poor. The south Tehran has completely changed for the better in the past few decades and many Bazaaris still prefer to live there.  And did I say that cartoons are supposed to be outrageous and irreverent? :-).

However, I commend your sensibility towards the South Tehran families and share it wholeheartedly with you.

Have a wonderful Nowruz.

AZADEHAZAD

Thank you for your comments. But this is what I do not understand;

"the nature of cartoons to be outrageous and irreverent"

WHY?

You do not sound like a person who is NEW to freedom of speech or writing. Why outrageous?

But then it is your view and my view is mine.

I am not sure I understand the 4th line of your comment.  Are you trying to say that artists should not draw things that are insulting to others, and if they do, they have not understood the freedom of expression?

If that is what you meant , then I think you are wrong in your understanding of  "Freedom of Expression." Irreverence is entirely subjective. When someone paints Obama as Jesus:

http://joemiller.us/2012/11/obama-crucifix-painting-removed-from-nyc-for-outrage-in-2008-now-on-display-in-boston-without-complaint/

many people find it offensive and put pressure on whomever to remove it. But then another group, a few years later, display the same painting without any problem.  [You need to copy and paste the link to be able to see the image.]

Artists usually do not INTEND to be offensive; but their works are sometimes, by some groups of people in some places,  perceived as insulting and even blasphemous. Again, this is because of the *subjectivity of the limits of freedom of expression*.

I did not at all had the intention of insulting the south Tehran families. And I am sure many readers of this site did not find it offensive, but you and probably many others did. Maybe I should have written my response to your critique differently. As cartoons are supposed to be "funny"or "facetious", different people would find them "irreverent", "outrageous" and "blasphemous". I should have been more clear in my statement.

The spaces of Arts and literature are where the line between the "Freedom of Expression" and "Respect for people's sensibilities" sometimes become blurry and controversial. My cartoon happens to be one of them. For me, it was the impossibility and silliness of a whole family breaking into other people's houses for their Haft-Seen display as a means of overcoming their poverty that was attractive. I was hoping that the readers would grasp the *triviality of the scene*, while pondering, one more time, on the negative effects of sanctions on ordinary folks instead of those in power. Voila!