|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 23, 2017 8:24:17 GMT -5
I always use traditional tools myself, but I've seen some artists do amazing things with a straight-to-computer inking. I think digital inking at this moment is where digital colouring was in the mid-90s: it will take a while for everyone to use the technology properly without simply faking it. (Computer inking makes tracing easy... but as we all know, inking should be much more than tracing. Just as colouring is much more than simply pasting gradient effects and lens flare filters over the line art). Agreed, but inking was always supposed to be 're-creating the pencils, faithful to the idea and aesthetic of the pencils, yet individual art in its own right'. meaning digital inks by Bolland have value because he was one of top 5 traditional-tools inkers of all time; he learned how to draw/ink sans !$%!!! crutches. the sample I posted above is indicative of laziness and pretentious marketing short-cuts/crutches claiming to be 'style', nothing more. Like Ware , Bechdel, Vasquez and literally millions of online pretenders-to-thrones. So why do you hate Chris Ware. I can see how his style and storytelling might not appeal to folks. But there is a difference between, "this isn't for me" and "this guy sucks". Bechdel, on the other hand is just another cartoonist without drawing skills.
|
|
|
Post by MDG on Jun 23, 2017 9:22:47 GMT -5
It's likely Ditko was "phoning it in" on some 80s or later assignments, but on his own work he's always finding interesting and creative ways to express ideas.
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 23, 2017 23:06:31 GMT -5
Agreed, but inking was always supposed to be 're-creating the pencils, faithful to the idea and aesthetic of the pencils, yet individual art in its own right'. meaning digital inks by Bolland have value because he was one of top 5 traditional-tools inkers of all time; he learned how to draw/ink sans !$%!!! crutches. the sample I posted above is indicative of laziness and pretentious marketing short-cuts/crutches claiming to be 'style', nothing more. Like Ware , Bechdel, Vasquez and literally millions of online pretenders-to-thrones. So why do you hate Chris Ware. I can see how his style and storytelling might not appeal to folks. But there is a difference between, "this isn't for me" and "this guy sucks". Bechdel, on the other hand is just another cartoonist without drawing skills. Careful, please. 'Hate' is as different to 'Loathes' as - to colour design professionals - Burgundy is to Bayeux-Violet. Or, in respect to the Rainbow Community, 'Guy-Dyke' is to Bi-Sexual*, or metaphysically, transubstantiation is different to transmogrification. The semiotic grist of any descriptive word, even a noun like 'hates' versus 'loathes', carries weight, and should be respected as a two-way street**. If you ask me why I loathe Ware, I can answer that. *Sadly this noble subset of LGBTIQA has been made use of, but not mutually-respected, in an equal/equality-friendly manner. Bad form. **Just as I respect the needs of the board to eschew certain words that are considered inappropriate for the 'G' rating of this board; fair is fair.
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 24, 2017 4:36:00 GMT -5
Memoire comics/graphic novels are to real comics what Moth Radio Hour is to real PBS documentaries.
Or Perez Hilton is to Harvey Milk.
There, I said it.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 24, 2017 9:57:40 GMT -5
So why do you hate Chris Ware. I can see how his style and storytelling might not appeal to folks. But there is a difference between, "this isn't for me" and "this guy sucks". Bechdel, on the other hand is just another cartoonist without drawing skills. Careful, please. 'Hate' is as different to 'Loathes' as - to colour design professionals - Burgundy is to Bayeux-Violet. Or, in respect to the Rainbow Community, 'Guy-Dyke' is to Bi-Sexual*, or metaphysically, transubstantiation is different to transmogrification. The semiotic grist of any descriptive word, even a noun like 'hates' versus 'loathes', carries weight, and should be respected as a two-way street**. If you ask me why I loathe Ware, I can answer that. *Sadly this noble subset of LGBTIQA has been made use of, but not mutually-respected, in an equal/equality-friendly manner. Bad form. **Just as I respect the needs of the board to eschew certain words that are considered inappropriate for the 'G' rating of this board; fair is fair. I think of hate and loathe as synonyms. But I leave it to you to characterize your dislike however you wish. So what is it about Chris Ware you loathe?
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,620
|
Post by Confessor on Jun 24, 2017 10:43:27 GMT -5
I think of hate and loathe as synonyms. And you're absolutely right to...at least according to my old Oxford English dictionary. Both words mean to "feel an intense dislike for." There's really no difference at all between the two terms, as far as their usage is concerned.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 24, 2017 11:13:47 GMT -5
I think of hate and loathe as synonyms. And you're absolutely right to...at least according to my old Oxford English dictionary. Both words mean to "feel an intense dislike for." There's really no difference at all between the two terms, as far as their usage is concerned. True, but I am okay if loathesware has a problem with using that word. I am more interested in why he feels that way about Ware, or Perlin.
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 25, 2017 5:41:08 GMT -5
I think of hate and loathe as synonyms. And you're absolutely right to...at least according to my old Oxford English dictionary. Both words mean to "feel an intense dislike for." There's really no difference at all between the two terms, as far as their usage is concerned. that depends on who uses them and why, contextually. 'hate' connotates possible violent actions or reactions, and has been semiotically attached to such. 'loathe' is generally an expression of an extreme distaste or revulsion. one cane revile something without hating it and/or wishing it harm. so with respect, incorrect. i loathe ware's work (explanation for kirby to follow), and the fact it's more promotion than exertion. I am, however, truly happy for every dollar he makes. if i hated him, i'd wish ill upon him, or for him to fail, or go broke. which i don't. thus, they are different words with different semiotic weights.
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 25, 2017 6:11:52 GMT -5
And you're absolutely right to...at least according to my old Oxford English dictionary. Both words mean to "feel an intense dislike for." There's really no difference at all between the two terms, as far as their usage is concerned. True, but I am okay if loathesware has a problem with using that word. I am more interested in why he feels that way about Ware, or Perlin. thank you for your decorous reply. in a nutshell, Ware - riding the coattails of grand minimalists such as Toth - cannot draw like Toth, whose 1950's work had similar linework elements as did late 1950's Kirby work such as Challengers of the Unkown. Toth CHOSE to become minimalist exemplified by his 1970's work for Warren Magazines; Ware merely played an emperor's-new-clothes game of self-promotional bull$@!! not to mention his #$@!!!! rip off of Eisner's 'the Building', of which I thankfully have a copy of that grand effort by Eisner, and thus can see tha laziness of ware's rip-off of that Eisner treat. while presenting himself as 'an original voice of deconstructionism'. plagiarism is not deconstructionism. it's artistic canniballism. Ware is to Toth and Eisner what Edison was to Tesla, in only the most gormless and lacking-any-functional-genitalia of ways.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jun 25, 2017 6:38:00 GMT -5
Or maybe Lware, knows both individuals and they acted like d**ks. Also, One definition of Hate is- you live to see them dead.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jun 25, 2017 8:33:49 GMT -5
True, but I am okay if loathesware has a problem with using that word. I am more interested in why he feels that way about Ware, or Perlin. thank you for your decorous reply. in a nutshell, Ware - riding the coattails of grand minimalists such as Toth - cannot draw like Toth, whose 1950's work had similar linework elements as did late 1950's Kirby work such as Challengers of the Unkown. Toth CHOSE to become minimalist exemplified by his 1970's work for Warren Magazines; Ware merely played an emperor's-new-clothes game of self-promotional bull$@!! not to mention his #$@!!!! rip off of Eisner's 'the Building', of which I thankfully have a copy of that grand effort by Eisner, and thus can see tha laziness of ware's rip-off of that Eisner treat. while presenting himself as 'an original voice of deconstructionism'. plagiarism is not deconstructionism. it's artistic canniballism. Ware is to Toth and Eisner what Edison was to Tesla, in only the most gormless and lacking-any-functional-genitalia of ways. Thanks. I have one Ware book and and that is the extent of my contact with his work. I know he gain some notoriety outside the comic field but didn't think much beyond that. But now I understand your (insert word of displeasure here) for him. I'm not sure I agree with you, but then again it would take more careful consideration of his work than I would want to spend the time on to do that.
|
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,620
|
Post by Confessor on Jun 25, 2017 11:14:06 GMT -5
And you're absolutely right to...at least according to my old Oxford English dictionary. Both words mean to "feel an intense dislike for." There's really no difference at all between the two terms, as far as their usage is concerned. that depends on who uses them and why, contextually. 'hate' connotates possible violent actions or reactions, and has been semiotically attached to such. 'loathe' is generally an expression of an extreme distaste or revulsion. one cane revile something without hating it and/or wishing it harm. so with respect, incorrect. i loathe ware's work (explanation for kirby to follow), and the fact it's more promotion than exertion. I am, however, truly happy for every dollar he makes. if i hated him, i'd wish ill upon him, or for him to fail, or go broke. which i don't. thus, they are different words with different semiotic weights. That might be your personal definition of the words "hate" and "loathe", but those are not the excepted English language definitions. Even insofar as semantics or semiotics is concerned, hate is just as often used to denote something revolting as loathe in common usage (as in "your racist opinions are hateful"). And hate certainly doesn't always have to connotate potential violence (as in, "I hate having a headache"). Don't get me wrong, that's fine if you want to use those two terms as if they weren't synonymous, but they really are, as far as the rest of the English speaking world and the good old Oxford English dictionary is concerned. I'll leave this subject now, because being a pedant is not an attractive quality for me to exhibit.
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 26, 2017 0:33:47 GMT -5
Or maybe Lware, knows both individuals and they acted like d**ks. Also, One definition of Hate is- you live to see them dead. I wish more comics podcasts featured such honest discourse! SALUD!
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 26, 2017 0:35:14 GMT -5
thank you for your decorous reply. in a nutshell, Ware - riding the coattails of grand minimalists such as Toth - cannot draw like Toth, whose 1950's work had similar linework elements as did late 1950's Kirby work such as Challengers of the Unkown. Toth CHOSE to become minimalist exemplified by his 1970's work for Warren Magazines; Ware merely played an emperor's-new-clothes game of self-promotional bull$@!! not to mention his #$@!!!! rip off of Eisner's 'the Building', of which I thankfully have a copy of that grand effort by Eisner, and thus can see tha laziness of ware's rip-off of that Eisner treat. while presenting himself as 'an original voice of deconstructionism'. plagiarism is not deconstructionism. it's artistic canniballism. Ware is to Toth and Eisner what Edison was to Tesla, in only the most gormless and lacking-any-functional-genitalia of ways. Thanks. I have one Ware book and and that is the extent of my contact with his work. I know he gain some notoriety outside the comic field but didn't think much beyond that. But now I understand your (insert word of displeasure here) for him. I'm not sure I agree with you, but then again it would take more careful consideration of his work than I would want to spend the time on to do that. Yes, and thank you; I've watched him closely for quite some time.
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 26, 2017 0:43:27 GMT -5
that depends on who uses them and why, contextually. 'hate' connotates possible violent actions or reactions, and has been semiotically attached to such. 'loathe' is generally an expression of an extreme distaste or revulsion. one cane revile something without hating it and/or wishing it harm. so with respect, incorrect. i loathe ware's work (explanation for kirby to follow), and the fact it's more promotion than exertion. I am, however, truly happy for every dollar he makes. if i hated him, i'd wish ill upon him, or for him to fail, or go broke. which i don't. thus, they are different words with different semiotic weights. That might be your personal definition of the words "hate" and "loathe", but those are not the excepted English language definitions. Even insofar as semantics or semiotics is concerned, hate is just as often used to denote something revolting as loathe in common usage (as in "your racist opinions are hateful"). And hate certainly doesn't always have to connotate potential violence (as in, "I hate having a headache"). Don't get me wrong, that's fine if you want to use those two terms as if they weren't synonymous, but they really are, as far as the rest of the English speaking world and the good old Oxford English dictionary is concerned. I'll leave this subject now, because being a pedant is not an attractive quality for me to exhibit. There's 'as they really are' as per the current university crowd, then there's 'as they really are' as per folks whom 'have to draft curriculums', and there are comic book curriculums these days, though often taught by $$#$$@!!!'s who've never had the self-discipline to learn what they need to know to make a single 'Andrew Jackson' from their 'work'. They often run 'masterclasses'. Having mastered NOTHING in comics. Aside from making the 'right pals' in 'chee-chee-culture'. Often calling upon redefinitions of definitions to pull-off such a con-job.
|
|