General Category > Comic Related Discussion

Dan Adkins

<< < (6/7) > >>

Yoc:
Bob,
You've gotten your official one and only warning.

You've been a good member in the past, let's not blow it.
This forum is free from this kind of polarizing postings. Nobody, no matter how long they've been a member, will be allowed to ruin the good thing we've got going here.

Please keep your posts polite, a-political and non-religious in nature.

-Yoc

JVJ (RIP):

--- Quote from: BobS on September 09, 2010, 04:27:45 PM ---[

I've been reading 'em since 1958, and I probably read (or at least looked at the pictures) Sunday comic strips from earlier.

If comic books are to be accepted as (occasionally) art then questions of lives of artists need to be asked.
Also Crumb probably started the autobiographical comics thing, and has made public some of his dirty laundry.
Also dirty laundry of other members of his family, and probably hurt feelings very much of members of his family because of his thoughtless invasions of THEIR privacy.

Drug use likely released Crumb utterly from his inhibitions. Head Comix (1970) is a good anthology of Crumb's earlier more uninhibited stuff.

I think he's trying to be slightly more 'respectable' these days. The Genesis book is maybe an example of
the more 'mature' (IMO self-consciously serious) Crumb.

Peace and disgruntledness (poo on John C. -- there's no censor like a fundamentalist Christian censor, except maybe a fundamentalist Islamic censor),
Bob


--- End quote ---

I disagree, Bob,
I see no connection between the examination of the personal life and the definition of Art. Such a comparison/exploration may give insights into the meaning of a particular piece, but it shouldn't be part of the criteria in deciding whether or not it IS art.

Again, I find READING Crumb to be much less enjoyable than looking at the pictures.

Speculating on the REASONS for an artist's path/direction is as fraught with misunderstandings as trying to ascertain an actor's true nature by the roles they play. They are artists and it is there JOB to entertain you. How and why Crumb arrived at his particular "role" is less important than the quality of the material.

I don't think Crumb is "trying to slightly more 'respectable' nowadays" That implies an attribute to his actions that he's never demonstrated before - i.e. that he cares what other people think of him. I think he has less to prove now and more freedom to tackle projects that appeal to him. I don't believe that he SUDDENLY developed an interest in Genesis or that he "matured" into it or that someone offered him a bunch of money to produce the book. I think that the Bible is part and parcel of who Crumb is and always was. See, you have factor that aspect of his psyche into "Dirty Laundry" as well. Like any complex and artistic mind, fitting ALL of the pieces together is not a simple process.

And remember, Genesis probably turned off as many existing Crumb fans for its content as it brought new ones to his work. I don't think he cares one way or the other. He draws what he likes and is always grateful that it pays him a living wage .

My 2¢. and remember...

... Peace, Jim (|:{>

John C:
There's plenty of room for both approaches to art, of course, and most critics/analysts/historians I know tend to specialize in one form or the other.  The artist-centric view, of course, plays better in the media, since it presumes that every piece of art is, by definition, about something personal.

It's worth pointing out, though, that factoring in the artist requires actually knowing the artist to be done right.  What the artist says about himself, or what others say about him, is just more art, and so doesn't really count, after all.

Yoc:
I can't say I'm a fan of Crumb's artwork but I did watch the 1994 'Crumb' documentary.
http://former.imdb.com/title/tt0109508/
It was like driving by a traffic accident. Fascinating in a creepy sorta way.

-Yoc

JVJ (RIP):

--- Quote from: John C on September 10, 2010, 04:46:18 PM ---There's plenty of room for both approaches to art, of course, and most critics/analysts/historians I know tend to specialize in one form or the other.  The artist-centric view, of course, plays better in the media, since it presumes that every piece of art is, by definition, about something personal.

It's worth pointing out, though, that factoring in the artist requires actually knowing the artist to be done right.  What the artist says about himself, or what others say about him, is just more art, and so doesn't really count, after all.

--- End quote ---
I'm not quite sure I know what you mean by "both approaches to art" John. Do you mean interpreting the art based on the mores and history of the artist vs just evaluating it as art unencumbered by the personal baggage?

I think it's kind of presumptuous of critics to think that they can glean a deeper insight into a work because they know some dark secret in the artist's past. I've been around enough artists to know that most often it is, as Crumb pointed out, "just lines on paper, folks" or simply the sheer pleasure derived from the creative act. However, most "Art" that we encounter is created to make a living and it's the lucky artist who reaches the point in his or her career where selling it is not a problem and their whims and wishes and inner muses can be catered to.

Crumb certainly has his emotional and psychological aspects to his work, but if you have ever examined his sketchbooks, there is an incredible array and variety of work there. What he chooses to publish is probably what he thinks will sell, which, based on the other material that he enjoys drawing, is only a tiny percentage of his psyche.

Or not. But you're absolutely right when you state that what an artist says (or draws) about himself is just "more art" and should not be taken as the truth. It's what sells or perhaps what the artist wants to remember or, perhaps, it's total fantasy that the artist wishes had happened.

Reading or factoring in the artist into the art requires more knowledge than most critics and certainly most casual observers will ever possess. Take all the hype and hysteria with a grain of salt and just look at the pictures - that's my suggestion.

Peace, Jim (|:{>

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page