One-Click Cartooning: Michael Maslin's "One New Yorker Cartoon Generator Reflects on Another New Yorker Cartoon Generator" AI, and the State of the Art.
The New Yorker cartoon generator inevitably appears.
I want to point you to longtime New Yorker contributor ’s latest post on his Substack. It’s equal parts affectionate and sobering, and it’s worth your time:
In the piece, he reflects on the creeping presence of AI in our cartooning world, noting:
“If the human element is stripped away, we’re left with…nothing. Just an endless loop of imitation without origin.”
Reading these thoughts from career artists always stops me in my tracks. Because it’s the same worry I raised in Death of Illustration by a Thousand Prompts — that the gigs that once paid the rent and gave younger artists a foothold are evaporating into prompt-driven churn, the human origin, the years of failure and refinement behind a drawing, get erased the moment a client decides “close enough” is good enough.
Michael reveals he has discovered a new AI generator that has been purpose-developed to make New Yorker cartoons. The very things we cartoonists agonise over creating every day. I’m not going to link to it because I don’t want to give it any oxygen. But it’s gross. It reminds me again of the quote from Joanna Maciejewska:
"I want AI to do my laundry and dishes so that I can do art and writing, not for AI to do my art and writing so that I can do laundry and dishes."
When I asked New Yorker Cartoon Editor Emma Allen on stage in 2023 whether they’d eventually be receiving AI-generated cartoons, she said, “We’re already getting sooo many.” That was over 2 years ago. (below). I can’t imagine the slop they’re wading through in 2025.
Michael also writes about the value of process, of imperfection, of a hand that knows where to hesitate. It echoes what I was talking about in Live Drawing in New York: A Dying Art? — that live drawing isn’t just about the end product, it’s about being there in the room, watching mistakes happen, and seeing a human correct them in real time. That’s what creates a connection.
To the people who keep saying we’re overreacting: We’re not Luddites. We’re not catastrophisers. We’re not deluded. This is our area of expertise, and we know what we’re talking about. It is affecting us directly every day now. This tradition (the one we’re in right now) is fragile, and if we’re not vigilant, we’ll wake up and it’ll be gone.
So read his piece. Sit with it. Then maybe come back to mine. They’re different in tone but pulling at the same thread: What happens when illustration and cartooning are treated as disposable, when speed and imitation eclipse the slow, imperfect work of writing and drawing?
The future of our field depends on what we’re willing to defend.
‘til next time,
Your pal,
276822
Here's the comment I put in Ink Spill:
C'mon living breathing cartoonists, we're way better than that! BE yourself, be weird odd-ball unexpected quirky subtle insightful artful creative the way only humans can...and tell The New Yorker to sharpen their skills and improve the stuff they're accepting (it's getting pretty thin, compared to 'the good old days"). Don't be "topical", be human!
I will only pay for true artists generated art. It’s affecting artists creativity and unique interpretation of life events. This just makes me sad. What would Charles Schultz think today?