I found the interview with Edward Koren quiet intriguing. Where, in this article, he alludes to the fact that he is not conscious of his audience when he makes his work. It is merely consumed in his own autobiographical state of frustration, especially concerning the middle class. Similar to Herblock’s caricatures, Koren’s use of animals seems to be a pragmatic decision as well. Herblock, referencing the famous novel, animal farm, is also one that uses animals in order to depict a serious and yet, relieving form of satirical humor. “Animals can be understood by anyone, at any time and usually at any age,” using this idea from Koren’s, I think we are able to understand the same social and political involvement even though we are from a truly different generation.
In Herblock’s print, instead of being just animals, or animals transformed into humans almost, he uses the pig as the antagonist in the situation, and the victims, the humans trapped behind barb-wired fences. In this scene, he plays off of the idea from George Orwell’s novel, Animal Farm. Here, the pig is seemingly “more equal than others.” The sign being one indication, as well as the whip, the cigar hanging out of the pigs mouth, and him sitting on a box that reads, 1 rural area vote = 100 city votes. This reference is maybe related to the discussion that we had about the voting system and states having the same power regardless of population… This suggestion for awareness of the population change within the 1960s still pertains to the issues we face today. In Koren’s essay he talked about the reliance on visual clichés. A pig is a good example of a cliché to depict a gluttonous character or a greedy character. The physiognomy of the pig suggests that he takes, and he is powerful and stubborn. I think this political approach however in Herblock’s print, is different from that of Guston; primarily because Guston acknowledges the ideas of political power, especially in his depiction of little Richard, whereas Koren claims his power to be social.