Five Things Before Bed
May. 30th, 2010 12:45 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat1. There's a rather cool article in Watcher Junior about how women are drawn in comics. Well at least it looks cool - I can't figure out how to read it on my computer without losing my eyesight. Tried to make larger and it backfired on me. Anyhow here's the link, in case you can do it:
http://www.watcherjunior.tv/05/schumacher.php
What it reminds me of is an experience I related to my Aunts last weekend, somewhat drunkenly, while staring at the Manhattan skyline scrolling past us at night. We were sitting in a revolving bar at the top of the Marriot Hotel in Time's Square, sipping cosmopolitans. I have little to no depth perception - which I discovered is yet another genetic quirk - because neither does my Aunt D. Makes driving a car an anxiety ridden experience. That warning on the side windows - "objects may be closer than they appear?" Not needed, since they look closer to me. I however can draw - just tend to screw up proportions, unless of course I'm drawing off of a photograph - in which case, not a problem. I can tell the proportions are off on paper. But I can't figure out how when I look at the form in front of me, nor how to translate it.
Was taking a life drawing class (one of many I've taken in my lifetime) a few years back at the Art Students League in Manhattan. Which provides affordable art classes - and some of the best I've taken in my life. Anyhow, I was taking a class from a guy who was an expert at drawing people, that I'd heard through the grapevine had the technical ability that I was looking for. He drew for medical texts and was rather brilliant. But alas, the first week of class - he got ill and they had to find a substitute. And at first, she seems pretty good...except, when I ask her what is off with my drawing of the naked guy that I'd been drawing for the past two hours. She looks at my drawing and at the naked guy. "Nothing, it's perfect." I stare at her, stare at the drawing, squint at the naked guy..."Are you sure? It looks off to me...I mean -". "No, it's fine." I stare at it again. "Okay, maybe fix the shoulder a bit, but outside of that...fine."
This perplexes me. I know something is off. I mean, I don't think the guy's dick is supposed to be longer and bigger than his thigh. Granted he is well-endowed. But not that well-endowed. The guy grins at me after class - because ahem, where I've been staring.
Anyhow, the teacher finally returns and the first thing I ask him is to look at the drawing I completed a week ago and tell me what is off? Because I know something is wrong with it. He takes out a red pencil and shows me - the thigh is too short, the dick too long, the arms too long and the width between the jaw and ear too elongated. Also shorten the neck here. I sighed in relief. I knew it was off. I wasn't crazy!
Whenever I look at the Buffy comics, the Angel comics, and several other superhero comics - I find myself laughing at the art. Why? Because these guys are making the same mistakes I did. With women - when I drew them from memory - I made their busts too big and their waists too small - not intentional. If given a photograph - I don't do that. Same deal with life drawing - I screwed up on thighs - too short or too long, and necks - too long. But looking at these comics? I apparently shouldn't have given up so easily - since people who made the same mistakes I did, are making money at it.
The thing about art though - is it isn't the same thing as a photograph. Not that either is an actual representation of what the subject truly looks like. While a photograph can be and often is manipulated to show the subject as the photographer wishes us to perceive them - it is in most respects a more objective rendering than a painting or drawing or sculpture. Because we are using light to reflect the subjects image onto a screen and imprint it. The light will bend it - and distort it, but not to the degree that our own fingers and minds will do. When we draw - we attempt to recreate on paper what we perceive through our own minds. So drawings tend to be more interpretative than film is, more abstract, and more subjective. You can make the image appear realistic, almost like a photo-graph - this is known as hyper-realism or photo-realism. But, often that is intentional, and most artists in this field will warp or distort a portion - so when we look at it - something appears to be off. It is meant to be reminder of how our perception of the world around us cannot be trusted. What we see is not necessarily what someone else sees. We all in effect have our own funhouse mirror in our heads. This is why - we may see ourselves as fat, when our friends see us as thin. Or vice versa. Visual Art is a way of communicating to others how we perceive the world around us. Yet, the irony of it is, no matter how well we draw, or what we draw - the people around us will see our art through their own funhouse mirror of distortions. Like the story I provide above - one teacher saw all the errors in proportion, more than I even did, while the other didn't see them at all.
2. Re-watched the ending of LOST again tonight, but skipped the self-congratulatory and fawning after-show on Jimmy Kimmel Live. (Those things make me cringe with embarrassment.) Anyhow, what I realized is the final does actually work within the framework of the series and it's narrative structure.
The story is set up from the get-go as Jack Shepard's journey, his handling of his issues. The other characters are sort of supporting players. And the narrative structure is set around the theme of being "lost" - spiritually, emotionally, physically, figuratively, metaphorically, and metaphysically. The story-tellers are men, so it is a tale told from their perspective. And while it is Jack's story, it is also, unlike Life on Mars or Ashes to Ashes - an ensemble with episodes focusing almost entirely on supporting characters - and we don't always see or focus on Jack.
In some respects the series is rather brilliant in how it is set up structurally. It's not really linear, so much as circular. And the plot is not as off-kilter as one may think. Sure they don't answer a lot of questions, but if you think about it - those questions weren't necessary or essential to the plot, so much as part of the general theme of feeling lost. The mysteries you can't answer or understand - which make you feel lost.
The series starts with Jack Shepard lying on his back in a bamboo field, injured, his eye opening and staring up at the sky, a dog licks him. It ends with a dog licking him, his eyes staring at the sky, as he lies on his back, watching a plane fly over head, and his eye slowly closes.
The first season's narrative - dealt with how each character felt lost in their lives off the island, unable to deal with major issues, hunting a solution they couldn't find before they crashed. Claire - didn't know what to do with her unborn child, Kate was trapped - handcuffed to a marshal, Sawyer failed in his quest to find the real Sawyer (Cooper), and killed the man who wasn't (Cooper), Sayid couldn't find Nadia - or true love - and was searching for its saving grace - to be a better man, and Lock was hunting a way to overcome his accident, his inability to walk that was linked to his issues with his father. While Jack - finally, had his own father issues to resolve - which were linked to his failed marriage, and his failures as a doctor/surgeon.
The second season - followed the first - this time the survivors were lost on the island, and wary of each other. And we got more backstory. Also more on the island which was unexplainable to them.
And so on. Each season focusing on another aspect of being lost. Trying to make sense of a world that makes no sense. Hence the appeal of series itself - to people around the world. This feeling of being lost in our lives, hunting answers, hoping what we do actually does matter.
Desmond tells Jack nothing we do matters. Jack responds, actually, everything we do does matter. Is there a life after this one? Does it get better? Can we control our fate? Can we hope for resolution or a happy ending, when we know at any moment we will die? Can we find ourselves? The idea of nothing making sense, the world gone mad - is hardly new and LOST examined it in depth.
The island itself is explained as a bit of a giant magnet, as is time travel. You can't change time. By blowing up the bomb - all Juliet did was send them back to their own time and set off the incident that brought them to the island to begin with. The bomb disrupted the island's balance and caused the shed to be build and the button to be pushed. But we want to believe otherwise. So the sideways verse becomes a mental/metaphysical construct - a limbo world - or what-if. What-if the island did not exist. What-if the plane did not crash. What-if we all met anyhow, but not on the island. What if we did this instead of that. Do we have any further control? Or less? Or the same? Does it matter?
Is the what-if construct real? A mass hallucination? A limbo? A dream that Jack has as he dies? It is largely left open to interpretation. Before I switched off the Jimmy Kimmel special - Mathew Fox stated that the story was to a degree focusing on the concept that limbo or the sideways verse is the theory that when we die, we have to come to terms with our life and our death, accept it, and relive it, before we can truly let go. It was about letting go.
I'm not sure it is fair to compare the story with others, although I certainly have done so - in that it is a story that focuses on other themes. On redemption. On what it is to be human, flawed. To struggle in a world where there are no answers.
If we look at the series thematically - the plot works. It is about being lost and confused. The structure is about each character wandering lost. We are inside their heads. And like the characters lost inside the structure.
So yes, LOST works. And in some respects it is rather groundbreaking - since few shows that have attempted this sort of thing actually survived past one season. And Lost created an iconic character - John Locke - a true tragic hero, brilliantly portrayed by seasoned veteran Terry Quinn.
3. Saw Iron Man today - was quite fun. Highly recommend. Loved the actors, the story, the romance and the characters. In some respects - I prefer it to the first one. It gave us a bit more depth on everyone involved. Also Don Cheadle was in some respects more interesting than Terrance Howard. And a better fit. Like Downey, Cheadle is a small man, not someone you think of as being powerful - and that is part of the point of the story.
Iron Man - is basically Marvel's somewhat snarky and ironic take on DC's Batman. I prefer Iron Man in some respects - because he's more realistic, and less romanticized. Also he has a female sidekick. Marvel was also a little less sexist in its depictions of female characters than DC in my opinion. Captain America is Marvel's snarky take on Superman.
Loved Downy Jr. I could watch that guy read a phone book. He's good in just about everything. Hard to do. He comes across as insanely bright in both this film and Sherlock Holmes. Laughed a lot in this film. And the violence was actually not as graphic or prevalent as in the first one.
I did have an embarrassing geek moment after the credits - in which I had to explain, somewhat awkwardly to my friends (who have not read the comics) - what the last scene meant and what it was in reference to.
4. Finished Carrie Fisher's Wishful Drinking -which is rather amusing and accurate take on what it is like to be mentally ill and have undergone ECT (electro-shock therapy). After seeing Next to Normal - which also deals with these topics - I found it truly interesting. Fisher has a snarky, self-deprecating wit - that I suspect keeps her sane. Or as sane as possible. In her book - she states a bit of useful advice, worth jotting down here - "Resentment is poison that you drink yourself while waiting for another to suffer or die from it." She also sheds a bright light on what it is like to grow up famous, the child of famous and iconic parents, and in a world where everyone cares what you ate for breakfast. Her novel is at times a rather interesting critique of our at times narcisstic celebrity obsessions and devotions. And the price those who are the objects of our devotions pay for it. Raising the question - should those who are successful artists - actors, writers, musicians, entertainers, and athelets - be at the mercy of their devoted fans worship? To what degree do we harm others by our own obsession with them? To what degree does the relationship become co-dependent?
5. Currently reading Terry Gross's All I Did WAS ASK" - a book that reproduces her interviews with accomplished writers, artists, actors, and musicians from her program Fresh Air. I'm in an odd mood -reading wise. I want dialogue, not description, but not dialogue from a play. I want to hear the voice of the writer, the I narrative. To be taken out of my own head. And I don't want violence or the idea of violence. Which is dicey - I looked at my bookshelf and most of my books have violence in them or the threat of it.
Today overall though? Lovely. Had lunch at Pigalle - a french restaurant off of 48th and 8th Avenue near Times Square with pals CW and G. On the way there - passed a store devoted entirely to M&M paraphernila. I kid you not. It was two floors of nothing but cups, buttons, t-shirts, sweats, plastic characters and chocolates that were M&M's. At the center - had M&M character statues. Outside a huge M&M character hanging on the side of the building, and a tv screen with their commercial at the top. I was blown away by the sheer audacity of the thing. And not to be outdone? Across the street was the Hershey Store - which took two floors and was huge as well.
Two floors of items devoted to Hershey Chocolates.
At lunch spoke with G, who'd returned from three years of teaching children in a remote village off of Lake Victoria in Tanzania, Africa. She's started a foundation for the children there. And is hunting a job. She's still a bit overwhelmed by the media overload. A bit of a culture shock going from a world with 0 electricity, no cell phones, no computers, no tvs or movies. She had something out there - because she watched DVD's people sent her, and read books they sent. There were no book stores or libraries. She said NY blew her mind. CW seems to think California is more open-minded than NYC. I had to laugh. People are more or less the same where-ever you go, I've discovered. Although we don't like to believe this. We drug poor G, who'd have rather seen Sex in the City, to Iron Man afterwards.
http://www.watcherjunior.tv/05/schumacher.php
What it reminds me of is an experience I related to my Aunts last weekend, somewhat drunkenly, while staring at the Manhattan skyline scrolling past us at night. We were sitting in a revolving bar at the top of the Marriot Hotel in Time's Square, sipping cosmopolitans. I have little to no depth perception - which I discovered is yet another genetic quirk - because neither does my Aunt D. Makes driving a car an anxiety ridden experience. That warning on the side windows - "objects may be closer than they appear?" Not needed, since they look closer to me. I however can draw - just tend to screw up proportions, unless of course I'm drawing off of a photograph - in which case, not a problem. I can tell the proportions are off on paper. But I can't figure out how when I look at the form in front of me, nor how to translate it.
Was taking a life drawing class (one of many I've taken in my lifetime) a few years back at the Art Students League in Manhattan. Which provides affordable art classes - and some of the best I've taken in my life. Anyhow, I was taking a class from a guy who was an expert at drawing people, that I'd heard through the grapevine had the technical ability that I was looking for. He drew for medical texts and was rather brilliant. But alas, the first week of class - he got ill and they had to find a substitute. And at first, she seems pretty good...except, when I ask her what is off with my drawing of the naked guy that I'd been drawing for the past two hours. She looks at my drawing and at the naked guy. "Nothing, it's perfect." I stare at her, stare at the drawing, squint at the naked guy..."Are you sure? It looks off to me...I mean -". "No, it's fine." I stare at it again. "Okay, maybe fix the shoulder a bit, but outside of that...fine."
This perplexes me. I know something is off. I mean, I don't think the guy's dick is supposed to be longer and bigger than his thigh. Granted he is well-endowed. But not that well-endowed. The guy grins at me after class - because ahem, where I've been staring.
Anyhow, the teacher finally returns and the first thing I ask him is to look at the drawing I completed a week ago and tell me what is off? Because I know something is wrong with it. He takes out a red pencil and shows me - the thigh is too short, the dick too long, the arms too long and the width between the jaw and ear too elongated. Also shorten the neck here. I sighed in relief. I knew it was off. I wasn't crazy!
Whenever I look at the Buffy comics, the Angel comics, and several other superhero comics - I find myself laughing at the art. Why? Because these guys are making the same mistakes I did. With women - when I drew them from memory - I made their busts too big and their waists too small - not intentional. If given a photograph - I don't do that. Same deal with life drawing - I screwed up on thighs - too short or too long, and necks - too long. But looking at these comics? I apparently shouldn't have given up so easily - since people who made the same mistakes I did, are making money at it.
The thing about art though - is it isn't the same thing as a photograph. Not that either is an actual representation of what the subject truly looks like. While a photograph can be and often is manipulated to show the subject as the photographer wishes us to perceive them - it is in most respects a more objective rendering than a painting or drawing or sculpture. Because we are using light to reflect the subjects image onto a screen and imprint it. The light will bend it - and distort it, but not to the degree that our own fingers and minds will do. When we draw - we attempt to recreate on paper what we perceive through our own minds. So drawings tend to be more interpretative than film is, more abstract, and more subjective. You can make the image appear realistic, almost like a photo-graph - this is known as hyper-realism or photo-realism. But, often that is intentional, and most artists in this field will warp or distort a portion - so when we look at it - something appears to be off. It is meant to be reminder of how our perception of the world around us cannot be trusted. What we see is not necessarily what someone else sees. We all in effect have our own funhouse mirror in our heads. This is why - we may see ourselves as fat, when our friends see us as thin. Or vice versa. Visual Art is a way of communicating to others how we perceive the world around us. Yet, the irony of it is, no matter how well we draw, or what we draw - the people around us will see our art through their own funhouse mirror of distortions. Like the story I provide above - one teacher saw all the errors in proportion, more than I even did, while the other didn't see them at all.
2. Re-watched the ending of LOST again tonight, but skipped the self-congratulatory and fawning after-show on Jimmy Kimmel Live. (Those things make me cringe with embarrassment.) Anyhow, what I realized is the final does actually work within the framework of the series and it's narrative structure.
The story is set up from the get-go as Jack Shepard's journey, his handling of his issues. The other characters are sort of supporting players. And the narrative structure is set around the theme of being "lost" - spiritually, emotionally, physically, figuratively, metaphorically, and metaphysically. The story-tellers are men, so it is a tale told from their perspective. And while it is Jack's story, it is also, unlike Life on Mars or Ashes to Ashes - an ensemble with episodes focusing almost entirely on supporting characters - and we don't always see or focus on Jack.
In some respects the series is rather brilliant in how it is set up structurally. It's not really linear, so much as circular. And the plot is not as off-kilter as one may think. Sure they don't answer a lot of questions, but if you think about it - those questions weren't necessary or essential to the plot, so much as part of the general theme of feeling lost. The mysteries you can't answer or understand - which make you feel lost.
The series starts with Jack Shepard lying on his back in a bamboo field, injured, his eye opening and staring up at the sky, a dog licks him. It ends with a dog licking him, his eyes staring at the sky, as he lies on his back, watching a plane fly over head, and his eye slowly closes.
The first season's narrative - dealt with how each character felt lost in their lives off the island, unable to deal with major issues, hunting a solution they couldn't find before they crashed. Claire - didn't know what to do with her unborn child, Kate was trapped - handcuffed to a marshal, Sawyer failed in his quest to find the real Sawyer (Cooper), and killed the man who wasn't (Cooper), Sayid couldn't find Nadia - or true love - and was searching for its saving grace - to be a better man, and Lock was hunting a way to overcome his accident, his inability to walk that was linked to his issues with his father. While Jack - finally, had his own father issues to resolve - which were linked to his failed marriage, and his failures as a doctor/surgeon.
The second season - followed the first - this time the survivors were lost on the island, and wary of each other. And we got more backstory. Also more on the island which was unexplainable to them.
And so on. Each season focusing on another aspect of being lost. Trying to make sense of a world that makes no sense. Hence the appeal of series itself - to people around the world. This feeling of being lost in our lives, hunting answers, hoping what we do actually does matter.
Desmond tells Jack nothing we do matters. Jack responds, actually, everything we do does matter. Is there a life after this one? Does it get better? Can we control our fate? Can we hope for resolution or a happy ending, when we know at any moment we will die? Can we find ourselves? The idea of nothing making sense, the world gone mad - is hardly new and LOST examined it in depth.
The island itself is explained as a bit of a giant magnet, as is time travel. You can't change time. By blowing up the bomb - all Juliet did was send them back to their own time and set off the incident that brought them to the island to begin with. The bomb disrupted the island's balance and caused the shed to be build and the button to be pushed. But we want to believe otherwise. So the sideways verse becomes a mental/metaphysical construct - a limbo world - or what-if. What-if the island did not exist. What-if the plane did not crash. What-if we all met anyhow, but not on the island. What if we did this instead of that. Do we have any further control? Or less? Or the same? Does it matter?
Is the what-if construct real? A mass hallucination? A limbo? A dream that Jack has as he dies? It is largely left open to interpretation. Before I switched off the Jimmy Kimmel special - Mathew Fox stated that the story was to a degree focusing on the concept that limbo or the sideways verse is the theory that when we die, we have to come to terms with our life and our death, accept it, and relive it, before we can truly let go. It was about letting go.
I'm not sure it is fair to compare the story with others, although I certainly have done so - in that it is a story that focuses on other themes. On redemption. On what it is to be human, flawed. To struggle in a world where there are no answers.
If we look at the series thematically - the plot works. It is about being lost and confused. The structure is about each character wandering lost. We are inside their heads. And like the characters lost inside the structure.
So yes, LOST works. And in some respects it is rather groundbreaking - since few shows that have attempted this sort of thing actually survived past one season. And Lost created an iconic character - John Locke - a true tragic hero, brilliantly portrayed by seasoned veteran Terry Quinn.
3. Saw Iron Man today - was quite fun. Highly recommend. Loved the actors, the story, the romance and the characters. In some respects - I prefer it to the first one. It gave us a bit more depth on everyone involved. Also Don Cheadle was in some respects more interesting than Terrance Howard. And a better fit. Like Downey, Cheadle is a small man, not someone you think of as being powerful - and that is part of the point of the story.
Iron Man - is basically Marvel's somewhat snarky and ironic take on DC's Batman. I prefer Iron Man in some respects - because he's more realistic, and less romanticized. Also he has a female sidekick. Marvel was also a little less sexist in its depictions of female characters than DC in my opinion. Captain America is Marvel's snarky take on Superman.
Loved Downy Jr. I could watch that guy read a phone book. He's good in just about everything. Hard to do. He comes across as insanely bright in both this film and Sherlock Holmes. Laughed a lot in this film. And the violence was actually not as graphic or prevalent as in the first one.
I did have an embarrassing geek moment after the credits - in which I had to explain, somewhat awkwardly to my friends (who have not read the comics) - what the last scene meant and what it was in reference to.
4. Finished Carrie Fisher's Wishful Drinking -which is rather amusing and accurate take on what it is like to be mentally ill and have undergone ECT (electro-shock therapy). After seeing Next to Normal - which also deals with these topics - I found it truly interesting. Fisher has a snarky, self-deprecating wit - that I suspect keeps her sane. Or as sane as possible. In her book - she states a bit of useful advice, worth jotting down here - "Resentment is poison that you drink yourself while waiting for another to suffer or die from it." She also sheds a bright light on what it is like to grow up famous, the child of famous and iconic parents, and in a world where everyone cares what you ate for breakfast. Her novel is at times a rather interesting critique of our at times narcisstic celebrity obsessions and devotions. And the price those who are the objects of our devotions pay for it. Raising the question - should those who are successful artists - actors, writers, musicians, entertainers, and athelets - be at the mercy of their devoted fans worship? To what degree do we harm others by our own obsession with them? To what degree does the relationship become co-dependent?
5. Currently reading Terry Gross's All I Did WAS ASK" - a book that reproduces her interviews with accomplished writers, artists, actors, and musicians from her program Fresh Air. I'm in an odd mood -reading wise. I want dialogue, not description, but not dialogue from a play. I want to hear the voice of the writer, the I narrative. To be taken out of my own head. And I don't want violence or the idea of violence. Which is dicey - I looked at my bookshelf and most of my books have violence in them or the threat of it.
Today overall though? Lovely. Had lunch at Pigalle - a french restaurant off of 48th and 8th Avenue near Times Square with pals CW and G. On the way there - passed a store devoted entirely to M&M paraphernila. I kid you not. It was two floors of nothing but cups, buttons, t-shirts, sweats, plastic characters and chocolates that were M&M's. At the center - had M&M character statues. Outside a huge M&M character hanging on the side of the building, and a tv screen with their commercial at the top. I was blown away by the sheer audacity of the thing. And not to be outdone? Across the street was the Hershey Store - which took two floors and was huge as well.
Two floors of items devoted to Hershey Chocolates.
At lunch spoke with G, who'd returned from three years of teaching children in a remote village off of Lake Victoria in Tanzania, Africa. She's started a foundation for the children there. And is hunting a job. She's still a bit overwhelmed by the media overload. A bit of a culture shock going from a world with 0 electricity, no cell phones, no computers, no tvs or movies. She had something out there - because she watched DVD's people sent her, and read books they sent. There were no book stores or libraries. She said NY blew her mind. CW seems to think California is more open-minded than NYC. I had to laugh. People are more or less the same where-ever you go, I've discovered. Although we don't like to believe this. We drug poor G, who'd have rather seen Sex in the City, to Iron Man afterwards.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-05-30 08:51 pm (UTC)I saw flake sake’s post but it just reminded me how much people’s taste in art varies. Although the JW Williams panel was clever I actually found it distinctly off putting. Sure the three Promeatheas had different bodies but their faces looked identical and the costumes and ‘camera’ angle seemed designed to direct attention directly to the crotch area. The more I read, and read about, Alan Moore the more I get creepy old hippy vibe from him.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-30 09:28 pm (UTC)And this is all highly subjective - which is why arguing over it tends to be counter-productive after a certain point. (shrugs)
Alan Moore does have a creepy old hippy vibe about him - particularly in The Extraordinary Gentleman arc. I find him difficult to read - he's not an artist, by the way, just a writer. But hey, looked at a certain way - Whedon is creepy, all his female heroines are hot and highly sexualized yet clearly adolescent girls and deliberately drawn as small and adolescent. (It may be worth noting that I am six foot, and not slim,
and can't identify with any of the female forms that Jeanty has drawn. So in way, feel a bit frustrated and alienated by the style - because it represents the ideal/norm that I see culturally - skinny and petite, small, with men who are taller. Not all women are 5 foot, with small busts. TV at least shows women who are tall, not just five foot.)
As for the men in Jeanty? Riley was taller than OZ (although they admittedly looked exactly alike sitting down and impossible to tell apart.) And Andrew is thinner than Riley (although in one panel - I couldn't tell them apart either). Jeanty's art is incredibly inconsistent. In one panel, Faith has a huge head and little body, in the next she's normal.
And yep, it is very similar to Disney style cartoon style. (An aside - in art school, apparently, people are taught to hate Disney's style. I overheard a comic book artist tell this to a comic shop owner - how he'd been taught to be critical of and hate everything Disney or in that style. My brother and sisinlaw who are professional artists - have much the same attitude. While older artists - tend to be less critical of Disney. So it may be to a degree a generational thing.)
I'm admittedly not a fan of the Disney style. And prefer a more realistic style in comic art. OR at most a consistent magna style.
That's not to say I necessarily hate or depise or even dislike Jeanty's art. It really doesn't bug me all that much. I'm critical of it - but I do like aspects of it, and I think he succeeds in satirizing past Marvel and DC comic covers as well as providing clear expressions of the characters. But I'm highly critical of most things.
no subject
Date: 2010-05-31 11:46 am (UTC)Good point about identifying, when I was their age I was roughly the shape of Jeanty's women only much more flat chested and without the enlarged head so it looks neutral to me. I do wonder why in cartoons heads get larger as the drawing becomes more abstracted. It may be that (in the West cartoons are often aimed at kids but I wonder if it also has to do with that thing where if you draw a human figure in proportion to the number of sensory nerves feeding back from an area heads (and hands) come out much larger. Maybe our brain maps of ourselves are like that and that feeds into idealisations of the human figure.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-01 01:45 am (UTC)That said there are artists and cartoonists who do it deliberately.
Jeanty is too inconsistent for it to be deliberate. In one frame - we get the big head, the next not. This feels sloppy. While in Charles Schultz famous Peanuts script - he deliberately does it.
As does Cathy. These artists are careful about being consistent and technically adept. Look at RR CRumb's art - you can tell when he decides to go abstract and when he doesn't. An American Life is one of the best drawn comics of all time. And there's the experimental work of Scott McCloud amongst others. Persepolis also does abstract art - often showing figures out of proportion - but this is for a purpose and we know why, can see why - it can be backed up. It's not sloppy. Another artist to look at is Frank Miller's black and white line drawings in Sin City - regardless of what you think of the content - the art is noteworthy in how it depicts the gritty violent noir world with no color.