I’ve been looking at it on and off all morning and I just don’t get it.

It’s a New Yorker cartoon from 1967. New Yorker cartoons generally aren’t especially funny, but I usually understand the point of the joke.

  • TheBananaKing@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    The artist is just playing with foreground vs background; his body carries on from the open space under the chair, and the 3d nose becomes a curled wire when removed from its normal context.

    There’s no ‘joke’ to get, except for your brain getting confused.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      I guess the nose not being shaded like the rest of the body is a clue there. I didn’t even think about that. Thank you.

    • Victor@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      The nose still has a surface area after being removed, as you can tell by the index finger disappearing behind it.

      Isn’t there some message to get? Are you sure? The person seems to be part of some military organization, possibly, going by the costume. So maybe this is some jab at something political that happened with the military around this time? Let me think, when was 'Nam? 🤔 [Looked it up] Yeah 'Nam was going on at this time. (Although the Vietnam war went on for a long-ass time – almost 20 years – so it could have been anything. But still.)

  • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I don’t think there’s an answer beyond “New Yorker.”

    The goal of a New Yorker cartoon is to make you go, “huh.” That’s all. I’d even go so far as to say punchlines or “points” are probably seen as gauche to New Yorker editors.

      • wjrii@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        His take on mid-century Major League Baseball is sort of equal parts adorable and unsettling. Other highlights of the issue: A Houston family is paid $75 to test a fallout shelter for 3 days, canned raw meat, and Chef Boy-R-Dee as mildly exotic party fare.

        See page 58 (archive file pagination) for the Saul Steinberg piece.

  • Meltrax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    Was there a caption?

    I also feel like the New Yorker targets issues and trends of its time, so it might be hard to know what this is about with some context of events around the time the issue was published.

  • SnokenKeekaGuard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    Although the comments seem to have figured out there is no meaning. If I were to force a political meaning out of this, I’d say it have to do with someone being nosy. Perhaps there was some journalist who’d found smth big recently, had it been 5 year later I would’ve said Watergate.

    One google search shows the biggest event in the US in 1967 being the Detroit riots (I’m not 'merican), but perhaps this calls the cops as being nosy in the affairs of others.

    • crystalmerchant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      In 1967 Vietnam protests were really gaining steam. This was the year of the Pentagon march with Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, and countless other activists. If there was a political meaning to this cartoon, it could have been related to the war and its backlash.