|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 26, 2017 0:48:20 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 live to see no-one dead, ever. Too much painful/agonizing death in my family to wish any form of death upon anyone. In honour of your post, though, one of the problems with posting in a place like this, is when you know beloved ppl whom acted like $#!, privately treated ppl like #Q!!!, then played the public-appearance game properly, and were treated like gold for that false-public-face. Worse, people being wrongfully-perceived as $#!'s, because they only attempted to defend their artistic and professional rights, and rights of others (specifically minorities in comics, with this happening before 1998 or so), and then got skewered for it. Which happened. There, I said it.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Jun 26, 2017 0:53:02 GMT -5
I've always felt a bit sceptical towards Ware's work too: everything I've seen of his work gives me the impression that he's mostly relied on a combination of an attractive design style with a fashionably ironic authorial stance, which happened to meet the demands of the market at that time. But that could be totally unfair as I haven't really looked at it enough to venture a serious opinion. I do have a copy of his Jimmy Corrigan book and I do plan to give it a fair shot one of these days, making every effort to put my admitted prejudice against it to one side.
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 26, 2017 0:55:22 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'd argue that anyone ripping off a Comic Book Great while purporting to me 'original' gives up any right to see anyone as d**ks, while wh***ing out PBS dollars to be interviewed about work that was a complete rip-off of Eisner, with the ironic addendum of being pathetically-drawn, while wh---ris*ly 'packaged. Though I live to see Ware live, live to actually DRAW something, with TRAD tools, without co-opting or plagiarizing others like Eisner.
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 26, 2017 0:59:04 GMT -5
I've always felt a bit sceptical towards Ware's work too: everything I've seen of his work gives me the impression that he's mostly relied on a combination of an attractive design style with a fashionably ironic authorial stance, which happened to meet the demands of the market at that time. But that could be totally unfair as I haven't really looked at it enough to venture a serious opinion. I do have a copy of his Jimmy Corrigan book and I do plan to give it a fair shot one of these days, making every effort to put my admitted prejudice against it to one side. A successful graphic novelist you likely know of and likely appreciate feels much the same way. The anti-irony is that this graphic novelist is a BIG fan of Eisner, without ripping Eisner off (or in Ware's case, since he cannot draw, ripping off a selling point of Eisner without bothering to draw anything which 'takes time and effort'.)
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 26, 2017 2:13:36 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. the problem with what you posted above is simple: it denies the credo from Harvey Milk Days to 'now' that 'The personal is political', which has caused major rifts in N.O.W. since the time of Camille Paglia being ousted by Steinem, Unlike partisans, I'm happy either way. Unless there's an obvious inconsistency; all i ask is that either 'here', or from publishers, I'm give a clear (no shifting-of-goalposts) yardstick. As opposed to the 'one group of third wave feminists versus the other' claptrap, as seen in the Zoe Quinn fracas/debacle.
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 27, 2017 1:43:44 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. good call. ware's ouvre is not worth a single heartbeat in the remaining heartbeats of your life. nor anyone else's. and thank you for the even-handed understanding
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 27, 2017 3:34:04 GMT -5
Bagge and Clowes are to 'presumably arty/intellectual comics' what andy warhol's 'Empire' and 'I, a Man' were to James Whale and Richard O'Brien queer-created art cinema.
"There. I said it". in honour of Patrick White.
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 27, 2017 3:52:45 GMT -5
I've always felt a bit sceptical towards Ware's work too: everything I've seen of his work gives me the impression that he's mostly relied on a combination of an attractive design style with a fashionably ironic authorial stance, which happened to meet the demands of the market at that time. But that could be totally unfair as I haven't really looked at it enough to venture a serious opinion. I do have a copy of his Jimmy Corrigan book and I do plan to give it a fair shot one of these days, making every effort to put my admitted prejudice against it to one side. well said. I won't retype or paraphrase other 'current' comics-artists or graphic novelists whom I respect (and whom can actually DRAW). I will however post their notions on this, which they've posted publicly on blogs, by name, where they can be reblogged willy-nilly. from one who is a self-admitted Grande Advotee of Eisner, and successful, on the subject of ware and his minimalism: 'Well now... this looks like a nice pool to cannonball into...
Ahem. (clears throat)
First, some foundation, the givens. Text is docile, anaesthetic and surfaced as a medium of information transfer. Words are all ready-mades, previously defined both in look, in meaning, and often even in point size for presentation. While Art is forceful, sensual, mysterious, and uncodified by nature. (This is regardless of the content, I'm speaking solely of the medium itself, used with competence.)
I know quite a few bookish people who simply can't tolerate the stimulus of powerful, sensual, and mysterious art, where there is no dictionary to look up what is being ingested through the eyes. (I think this population is rising steadily, and has been for some time, as population density and various ideological madnesses wall everybody in to their study rooms.)
I have always wondered if there is some kind of spectrum-disorder issue at root there. Or whether there is simply a natural oversensitivity to aestheticized information that leads bookish people to retreat into bookishness.
Or whether bookishness as a life-habit is so anaesthetic and protected that it actually leads, in some or many, to one's normal childhood oversensitivity to forceful stimulus continuing on into adulthood. In other words, the root issue is inexperience, and how that retards psycho-aesthetic or psycho-emotional maturity.
Either way, there seems to be a correlation between bookishness, existential anxiety, and a preference for anaesthetic graphics and art. In other words, text-people want information graphics to be their illustration (and fine art) because they psychically can't handle anything more.
I think their intuitive need to shield their oversensitivity, added to the bookish word-centricity, leads to any number of nonsensical, pseudo-intellectual rationales for why powerful art isn't any good; why real art must be circles for heads and red squares on white canvas or my politics which I've read up on, and not theirs. (The ego that attends verbal and textual articulateness will never allow the idea that there is inexperience and frailty at play in their preferences.)
What this anti-romantic push really amounts to is a need to control stimuli; to control the force of cultural products, in order to keep ambient anxiety under control. And a control freak is always going to hate when they can't understand what is being said in any particular room they might find themselves in.
The mass rise in bookishness, to me, is an important predicate for Thomas Wolfe's Painted Word thesis.
That bookish, artistically incapable, psychically-fragile people have long since taken control of critical discourse on painting is exactly how and why it has been eradicated from high culture in its strongest form. And we are left with aesthetically denuded graphics of various types all across the board, from The New Yorker's robotic-infantile egg-head graphics, to Murakami, to Miro, to all white canvases, red squares, etc.'
|
|
|
Post by Dr Johnny Fever on Jun 27, 2017 10:11:52 GMT -5
What I'd like to say is that I think a 'real world' Transformers comic would be interesting (not saying good... but interesting).
And by 'real world' I mean at the very least things would have realistic scales (eg. a pick-up truck transforms into a robot that's maybe 15' tall and not 50' tall), and the "robots in disguise" means something (they really try hard not to be discovered). More of a secret society/agent thing and less a cosmic adventure thing.
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Jun 28, 2017 14:52:51 GMT -5
Let's see a new updated Galactica 1980 to go along with the Sci-Fi channel's updated Galactica. How much more crazy it can be now with digital/CGI work and especially with the Cylon's having human forms. All the the things which the show could accomplish working within TODAY's time frame and politics. Might be a very interesting show for watching. There I said it.
|
|
|
Post by LovesGilKane on Jun 29, 2017 8:42:47 GMT -5
Let's see a new updated Galactica 1980 to go along with the Sci-Fi channel's updated Galactica. How much more crazy it can be now with digital/CGI work and especially with the Cylon's having human forms. All the the things which the show could accomplish working within TODAY's time frame and politics. Might be a very interesting show for watching. There I said it. Cylons in mechanoid form against Somali pirates... tasty.
|
|
|
Post by pinkfloydsound17 on Jul 2, 2017 15:12:49 GMT -5
People paying $80-100 for Amazing Spider-Man #361 are crazy....people paying similar or more for the second print are MORE crazy!
I love Spidey and I like Carnage and the way he looks. Did the stories every blow me away? No. But man, I am glad I got these for like $3-5 bucks 10 years ago. I feel like this issue is the next Deadpool...will explode until a movie comes out and then simmer but still be a crazy price for a book that literally every comic fan/collector owned and has a copy of.
|
|
|
Post by kirby101 on Jul 2, 2017 15:54:33 GMT -5
For about $100 I can get this!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 2, 2017 16:10:57 GMT -5
People paying $80-100 for Amazing Spider-Man #361 are crazy....people paying similar or more for the second print are MORE crazy! I love Spidey and I like Carnage and the way he looks. Did the stories every blow me away? No. But man, I am glad I got these for like $3-5 bucks 10 years ago. I feel like this issue is the next Deadpool...will explode until a movie comes out and then simmer but still be a crazy price for a book that literally every comic fan/collector owned and has a copy of. At my CBS Store that I go to - you can get a very good copy for $70 for it; anything $80 or more is too much for me to bear.
|
|
|
Post by Icctrombone on Jul 6, 2017 19:23:14 GMT -5
I have never read a Tin Tin story. Ever.
|
|