Artoong – Your Source for Artoong Content

James Thurber’s 1939 cartoon “If Grant Had Been Drinking at Appomattox” shows a disheveled Union general slouched in a chair, rambling incoherently at a bewildered Robert E. Lee. The caption reads: “And so, General Lee, if you will just—uh—just sort of let me sort of sneak back into—uh—sort of sort of…” That trailing, stammering, perfectly flat sentence is the joke. The drawing is funny. The caption is devastating. Remove the caption and you have a man who looks unwell talking to a man who looks uncomfortable. Add the caption and you have the Civil War renegotiated by a drunk. The line does not explain the image. It completes it. And…

You laugh. Half a second later, you find out what you laughed at. That tiny delay — the beat between the laugh and the thought — is the whole engine of the form, and it is the least examined half-second in public life. Psychologists call part of the mechanism incongruity resolution. Arthur Koestler called the underlying move bisociation. Working cartoonists mostly call it “the second read.” Whatever name it answers to, the best cartoons make you laugh and then think because the laugh and the thought are two detonations of the same charge — and the pause between them is where the cartoon does its real work. The Laugh Is…

Color theory is the study of how hues interact, contrast, and influence perception. In political art, it is not decoration. It is argument. A red background does not merely look angry; it borrows the visual grammar of emergency, blood, and stop signs. A washed-out palette does not just feel sad; it implies neglect, faded memory, or bureaucratic exhaustion. For cartoonists, illustrators, and meme-makers, color is a second caption—one that works before the viewer reads a single word. This matters to anyone who draws lines in public, because the line says what happened, but the color says how to feel about it. Political art has always leaned on color as shorthand.…

Twenty thumbnail sketches of the same politician sit on my desk. Every one of them is wrong. Not wrong the way a finished drawing is wrong—a misplaced shadow, a likeness that drifts between sessions. Wrong the way a sentence is wrong when the structure underneath it hasn’t been thought through. The line is fine. The idea hasn’t landed. [SKETCH: A grid of twenty small pencil thumbnails, each roughly two inches square, showing the same figure in different compositional arrangements—some tiny in a vast empty frame, some looming with jowls filling the panel, one with his back turned, one reduced to a silhouette against a window. Most are crossed out with…

Historical figures are the easiest targets in a cartoonist’s arsenal—and the hardest to draw well. They show up pre-costumed, pre-scripted, pre-judged. Give Napoleon a hand tucked in his coat, Lincoln a stovepipe hat, Cleopatra a snake, and the audience does half the work. But the moment ink hits paper, you’re not just drawing a person. You’re drawing a memory, a myth, a classroom lesson, a national wound, a family heirloom. The ethics of satirizing the dead isn’t about being polite to ghosts. It’s about being honest with the living. This is where visual satire does its strangest work. A cartoon of a living politician is a provocation. A cartoon of…

Visual argument is not a picture that happens to have an opinion. It is a claim made with line, weight, and negative space—a form of reasoning that works before words arrive. In the world of editorial cartooning, syndicated strips, webcomics, and the occasional well-aimed meme, the drawing is the argument. It names a target, sets a frame, and asks the reader to complete the joke. That completion is the thinking. This article is for anyone who suspects that a well-drawn line can do more than decorate a page—it can cross-examine a politician, puncture a press release, and leave a bruise that a thousand-word op-ed would envy. Cartooning as civic practice…