Art Spiegleman did a controversial cover with, if memory serves, a Hassidic Jewish man kissing a black woman. Barry Blitt did the infamous Michelle Obama as Angela Davis cover… so it’s not like the magazine is shying away from edgy stuff. It may be that this just wasn’t up to Crumb’s usual standards and a dumb art editor failed to communicate properly.

…throwing trans people under the bus to advance the gay agenda.

That’s a rather grand accusation. Would you care to explain it?

I draw for dollars and have been for over a decade. No response for months is just a case of client flakery – whether it’s the NYer or the Donut shop up the street. 

I feel that’s part of an editor’s job.

Unfortunately, many people seem to focus on the paycheck aspect of their jobs to the detriment of the work aspect.

I’m assuming this is relatively normal for the magazine industry.

Mr. Crumb has worked with various magazines and publishers for quite a few years now. I think he probably has some sense of how the industry normally works.

I’m assuming this is relatively normal for the magazine industry. They ask someone to submit a cover design, it’s not automatically accepted, they may have others doing drafts as well. In the end, the company decides what cover is best for their magazine/issue. It is business and it isn’t personal.

Sure, it was rude for them not to converse more with him over the rejection, but I’m fairly certain Crumb has someone he talks to at New Yorker if he really wants to know.

An apology? I don’t expect an apology. But if I’m going to work for them I need to know the criteria for why they accept or reject work. The art I made, it only really works as a New Yorker cover. There’s really no other place for it. But they did pay me beforehand—decent money. I have no complaint there. I asked Françoise what was going on with it and she said, “Oh, Remnick hasn’t decided yet…” and he changed his mind several times about it. I asked why and she didn’t know. Several months passed. Then one day, I got the art back in the mail, no letter, no nothing.

Nowdjagetit?

I think Robert Crumb is an unlikely candidate for New Yorker cartoonist, because his illustrations are neither boring nor conservative enough for the average subscriber, but what do you think?

What do I think?  That you really don’t understand the New Yorker or it’s readers.

If you tell someone your work is finished when it’s turned in, that’s it, and they can “take it or leave it”, you shouldn’t be surprised if they decide to leave it.

And, if Crumb were anything less than the definition of illustration for a generation-plus, I’d agree with you.

Really? It happens all the time. That’s not even what this is about, and Crumb said he didn’t care that it was rejected. What are you trying to say here?

No.  I don’t think so.  I think those of us who try to perform assigned tasks to the best of our abilities deserve more than just vague assertions that “It’s not working out” as we’re hustled towards the door.   I frankly don’t give a rat’s ass what the tasks in question are.  We all deserve common consideration from our alleged superiors, but it’s very rare for us to actually get it.

Same sex or not, nobody should care.

Also, the New Yorker does have provocative covers frequently, the one with the Obama’s fist bumping in the White House with a picture of Osama bin-fuckface on the wall, or the one with the Hasidic man kissing a black woman, at a time of hot tensions between the groups in NYC.
So they just didn’t like Crumb’s work, he’ll live.

Yes, that’s what it “looks like.” But you aren’t 100% sure and neither is the marriage license clerk. He is going to have to look at their genitals to make sure. 

“Why use it to illustrate same sex marriage?”

See above. That’s why.

If you call Crumb’s comment about not wanting to work again for an editor that rejected his illustration without an explanation a “hissy fit,” then how would you describe your own comment, which has about 10 times as many histrionics in it as Crumb’s comment?