For one thing, it's in the cartoon, not on ...

I'd say it's unusual to use the simple present but not unheard of.

It sounds completely wrong to me if it's just one picture. If you had a series of cartoons showing a sequence of activities, you could describe them in the simple present: "A man puts on his walking shoes and hikes up to the mountain. He climbs the mountain and sits on the mountain top for a while, then comes down again".
Even in this case, if the activity was a "background" activity you'd have to use the present continuous: "As the man is sitting on the mountain top, a mountain lion comes up behind him and leaps on him".
BTW it isn't a question of conservative grammarians - even your man on the street would find it weird, without being able to explain why - it would just sound funny.

Das Present progressive wird ja benutzt, wenn ich beschreiben will, dass etwas "gerade", "in diesem Moment" geschieht/ abläuft. Und ein Bild, Cartoon etc. stellt ja in der Hinsicht eine Momentaufnahme dar. Allerdings betrifft das wirklich nur die Verben, die einen Vorgang/Aktion/Tätigkeit und nicht allgemeine Zustände beschreiben. Wenn man bspw. eine rote Rose im Bild sieht, heißt es immer noch: the rose is red und nicht is beeing

is beeing ist schon mal von Haus aus falsch, da es mit Bienen wohl nichts zu tun hat. Du meintest wohl "is being." :-)

summ summ

das war wirklich nur ein Tippfehler, wirklich ;-)

I agree with CM2DD and Alias, and dude about 'in.'

In the cartoon, a man is sitting on a mountaintop. The mountain is very tall.
The man in the picture is sitting on a mountaintop. He has a long white beard.

The only exception would be if there were a time adverb that suggested a repeated or habitual action:

The comic strip shows a man who goes and sits on a mountaintop again and again, day after day. Finally, one day, he hears a voice: ...

The only exception would be if there were a time adverb that suggested a repeated or habitual action

I would disagree with that; to me, it largely depends on the style of narration.

Look at some of these examples:
http://cdm.lib.usm.edu/cdm_usm/results.php?CI...

I'm not sure how best to describe the rule, but there is a convention (which may be falling into disuse) of using the simple present when describing a depiction (as opposed to an actual scene, I think). I think it goes together with the use of inversion, rather than "there is".

If someone asks you to look out of the window and describe what you see, you might (in rather unusual circumstances) say "There's someone dancing in the garden. He's holding a snake in one hand and a skull in the other."

When describing a timeless work of art, however, you might write "In the foreground is a dancer. In his left hand he holds a skull, in his right a cobra."

#7 Thanks, dude, for those examples in t link. When I look at example 5 I get the idea that it would sound actually awkward to have all those verbs in the present progressive. It would sound much less fluent. Does anyone agree? But then, what would a rule sound like that allows the simple present in visual representations? When there are more than two or three verbs to describe it?

"From the AAEC Editorial Cartoon Collection; Cartoon by Bob Beckett. At the left side of the cartoon is a Little League baseball player labeled "U.S." who is jumping up and down in happiness. The player holds a baseball bat up in one hand. With his other hand, his index finger signals No. 1. Uncle Sam, in the center, faces the U.S. player and pats him on the head. With his other arm, he signals disapproval or failure with his downturned thumb to a Taiwanese player who stands at the right side of the cartoon. The Taiwanese player is crying as he stands with a man in a suit (father?, corporate supporter?), who appears angry. The man and player stand before a flag of the Republic of China."