I want to talk about the critical practice of using an 'art paradigm' in discussing creators who did not think of themselves as 'artists', but rather as 'craftsmen' or 'journeymen'.
By discussing these craftsmen as artists the critic is
1) allocating resources (critical attention / books) to late career or post-career (ie dead) cartoonists when today's young cartoonists are in need of these resources
2) creating a false lineage between old/dead cartoonists and young cartoonists
3) creating the illusion of discussion within comics about 'art', when in fact such discussion is almost non-existant
The subjects of such criticism may include*:
Ernie Bushmiller
George Herriman
Hank Ketcham
Frank King
Jack Kirby
Harvey Kurtzman
Charles Schultz
John Stanley
Rodolphe Töpffer
While it is valuable for the comics economy to maintain the 'public legacy' of old/dead cartoonists, as institutional value is derived from the past, it is also valuable that they are remembered in a way that does not negatively alter the present. Spending too much on the past can leave the present and future in debt. The culture of comics has an oddly fascistic devotion to the past, and this devotion perpetuates the 'same old shit'.
I imagine some of the attraction for placing such creators under the 'artist' archetype is in order to 'substantiate' comics as a medium offering a 'rich history' with 'inspired' creators. But creating a falsely rich past inflates the currency of the present.
Austin English is a young cartoonist who seems to be 'inaccessible' to most critics today. He seems highly concerned with craft but unconcerned with relating his craft to the comics history narrative. This lack of lineage provides the context for Eric Reynolds of Fantagraphics to say, "English isn't really a cartoonist at heart."
Some criteria for being considered an accomplished cartoonist include:
development of an identifiable 'style'
consistency within that style
production of new formal gadgets
clever usage of existant formal gadgets
commitment to the 'art of 'cartooning'
Within this context, which appears to 'cover all the bases' of 'art' within cartooning, English has no precedent for discussion. He offers little consistency throughout his work as he navigates a constantly evolving visual language. He seems to be focused on the present and future as opposed to the past. As a creator he does not belong to any tree of tradition. The closest referents, say, Mark Beyer or Souther Salazar, are also generally excluded from such discussion.
Austin is just one example of a young cartoonist who is ironically being overlooked in critics' search for 'art' in comics. 'Ironically' of course because he actually identifies as an artist and his work deserves being talked about as such.
*Full disclosure: I don't know much about these creators. I am not interested in them for various reasons
41 comments:
I never have any idea what the hell you're trying to say, or if you even mean to be taken seriously at all, frankly.
As for the list of cartoonists at the start of your post: I think every one of them except Stanley (definitely) and bushmiller (likely) would have considered themselves "artists" and not "craftsmen".
I'm not sure where English fits in with this, as I think he's a very poor artist... and craftsman... and cartoonist... whatever you choose to call him.
To those of us half-a-century removed from the work of these guys, it shouldn't matter what their designations or intentions -- all that should matter is how the work affects us. Naturally we should be critical of the content, etc. but once the work is done, it's out of the creator's hands and he/she has no repsonsibility for its effects/meanings.
I guess I'd rather look at Alex Toth than Debuffet, but I'd never call Tothanything more than a craftsman.
Now, let's all take acid and give each other bad haircuts and draw elves humping giant crystals and playing hopscotch with grasshoppers.
When old dead artists with a wide popular appeal are given critical attention or new books, it "trickles down" to new artists. "A rising tide lifts all boats," right? I think that's clear.
It's true that I often feel kind of embarrassed when I hear older cartoonists, who worked mostly through a craft or journeyman tradition, give interviews in which they adopt art language that's similar to the paradigm you describe. Basically, it sounds really obvious when old guys lift descriptions of their work from critics who later elevated it higher than it was originally conceived. I really like their work anyway and I'm just disappointed if they feel like they have to discuss themselves in a new paradigm.
(Damn, I can't find a good example, but do you know what I mean? It's like rushing to use the term "graphic novel.")
You're using the word "art" very narrowly, which of course is your prerogative. I wouldn't disagree with you, but I'm not going to stop calling Bushmiller or Herriman or Kirby "artists."
I couldn't agree more about Austin. I hope he gets published and discussed and paid even more!
I think my point about Austin was taken a bit out of context. He subsequently assured me that he was a cartoonist at heart, and frankly, who am I to doubt him? I think my point at the time was that Austin is a very thoughtful writer, a man with good ideas, but I tend to find that his images rarely convey those ideas as keenly, clearly and as sophisticated as his words do. He's the anti-Bushmiller in that regard.
Art isn't a zero-sum game. Attention on a given artist is not equal to ignoring another.
Art's not a "zero sum game," but the finite resource that is peoples' attention is. It makes no difference to Austin's art if people pay attention to it or not, but it might make a difference to Austin. Eric, I think you're making Blaise's point - by paying too much attention to the past we tend to consider a particular mode of creation more "comics-like" because it relates to this historical lineage. It's easy to call Chris Ware's work "comics" because it relates to the economy preferred by older cartoonists like Bushmiller, but, because of historical navel-gazing, we create formalist notions of artforms that restrict our further exploration. Austin doesn't fit comfortably, but he's making comics. And who gives a shit what you call it, right? I'd rather read/look at what Austin's doing than what almost any of the more conservative cartoonists are doing. What Austin's making is so much more related to his existence in the world than most of the genre crud out there. And Toth is pretty, and Dylan Williams's strip about him is amazing, but I don't want to read Toth, and I do wanna read Austin and aren't comics different from visual art because they're supposed to be read?
It's a good point, Jason.
I think we can "read" comics in many different ways. I read Toth not for the stories/narratives (painful stuff), but for the visual elements: the compositions, the use of blacks, the breakdowns, the representational minimalism. I read English's (not knowing him I don't think I should call him Austin) work for story/narrative (mostly through the text) and rather different visual elements: texture, color, symbolism (of a sort), etc.
Oh man. As though if we were to suddenly disavow our historical notion of what comics are ( why are we doing this again?* ), critics would suddenly start promoting Austin fucking English.
*Oh, wait, it's so Austin fucking English can get recognition. It's so you guys can feel like you don't have to measure up to notions of greatness that, apparently, you've already disavowed. Guess what? NO ONE IS WATCHING. NO ONE CARES.
No one picks up a Blaise Larmee comic and thinks " Aw, man, it's not like Jules Fieffer. Next!"
They're either one of the fifty people who're into what you guys do, or they're not. It has nothing to do with whether they like Peanuts or not.
To think that there are no critics sophisticated enough to really get what Austin is doing is INSANE. The work is really just not that noteworthy. Sorry.
Are we really saying that "cartooning" has nothing to do with what we've ( as a culture) determined it has? If you're not interested in that, why do you want to call what you do cartooning/comics at all? What's the point, if you don't want to get in on some of that cultural currency?
The answer to that is: A) Snobbery and B) Inability to master existing forms
It's like wanting to make porn without nudity.
The comics paradigm seems to be locked into the past, into a dead culture. And it's using contemporary language (or trying to) to relate this dead culture back to the present.
I just want to acknowledge that this dead culture exists and it:
is antagonistic to the living cultures I invest in
dissuades others from investing in living cultures
March 10, 2010 10:57 AM
It's just that I grew up with those forms, and, because of that I'm attracted to them. I love some of the imagery. Dick Sprang's Batman mesmerizes me, but what does that mean? I'm interested in parts of lots of comics, but I wouldn't read a book of Nancy or Dick Tracy strips. I don't really buy comics anymore, and I'm not interested in most of them, but that doesn't mean I don't love a few of them and think they're really great. I'm disappointed that there's not more stuff that I think is amazing.
Is it snobbery to not be interested in something?
What Blaise just said.
I'm not sure what blaise just said because I stopped at the word "paradigm".
Snobbery is also, often, a form of embarrassment. A lot of art comics guys have it in spades, as do most hipster artists in any medium. They usually try counter it by ironically engaging only the basest forms of genre "tropes" like... elves, crystals, dragons, leg warmers, big sunglasses, unicorns, ad infinitum... while ignoring the genuinely fascinating and bizarre stuff that even the most traditional or antiquated work possesses... like, for example, Dick Tracy or Nancy, which are far weirder than Gary Panter and all of the Ft. Thunder guys combined.
i'm in between waking up and falling back asleep, sorry
my comment was too negative. all these cultures live and none are better than any other
i feel like there are 'dead cultures' i would want to participate in
sometimes in the comments i end up defending things i don't believe
Also, someone posted something somewhere about the new-ish Boody Rogers books, saying they liked seeing those strips out of context in Raw or whatever but felt they were diminished when they were all together in a book. That's how I feel about most of comics' history.
It's not that I'm embarrassed. I don't care about being caught reading All-Star Superman on the bus or something. It's just that I have a job, a wife, a baby, and drawings to make, and with the tiny amount of time I have left, I'm not going to allocate it to reading something that I find pretty dull.
And I'm not into outsider art. Nancy and Dick Tracy are weirder than Gary P or Ft. Thunder, but I'm not looking at art as a cultural phenomenon; I don't need "weirdness" or something exotic. Gary Panter, at least, is just good.
Again, what Blaise said. I get too caught up in playing the part of the guy defending this or that theory. I really liked All-Star Superman.
Sorry, my beard got caught in the chain of my fixie after I had too much espresso at the cafe I work at.
"The comics paradigm seems to be locked into the past, into a dead culture."
How is the culture dead, Blaise? Who decides which one is living?
This antagonism to anything that happened before you were born is infuriating. If you can't see real, relevant culture oozing out of all those old comics, I feel sorry for you.
Do you really think you're that different?
Am I living in a "dead" culture, because I prefer Charles Schulz work to yours?
"i feel like there are 'dead cultures' i would want to participate in
sometimes in the comments i end up defending things i don't believe"
Are you just out shopping for "culture" then? Do you just pick it off the rack, or...?
I don't want to get heated, but I think it's really sad and weird that "culture" is something people hold outside of themselves, like a product. Like history stopped when they picked up a pencil...
There are people ten years older than me that interviewed Chester Gould for their school paper...
You're a part of this culture, whether you like it or not. If you want to oppose it, go ahead, but there is nothing more bourgieous and boring than staying aloof to it, or worse, affecting different poses to suit your delusions about yourself and your place in culture.
Really, you guys are a lot like millions of other art school types.They just are not interested in comics, probably for the same reason you guys don't like comics.
Why try to be a part of "comics", then?
i agree a lot here in some ways, but dont you think your disinterest kind of disqualifies you from the rounded nuanced debate you desire about comics in the first place? i mean, i agree. comics could use less self reference.
"Eric, I think you're making Blaise's point - by paying too much attention to the past we tend to consider a particular mode of creation more comics-like because it relates to this historical lineage. It's easy to call Chris Ware's work "comics" because it relates to the economy preferred by older cartoonists like Bushmiller, but, because of historical navel-gazing, we create formalist notions of artforms that restrict our further exploration. "
No, I disagree with this. I'm not saying I don't think Austin's images are less effective because they don't hew to the lineage, I'm saying I don't think he's as in control as a visual storyteller as he is as a writer, regardless of any formalist notions of artforms. By contrast, I think your own work, which severely challenge existing formalist notions of comics, are utterly in control and effective in a way that Austin's aren't. Don't get me wrong, I have enjoyed a lot of Austin's work, but his comics in particular just aren't *there* for me in that full realized harmony of words and images. I don't mean to slight Austin at all, he's a very talented young man, but wanted to clarify the quote that Blaise cited.
haha, so could this blog
Only geniuses or freaks can transcend the past. Geniuses do it by totally assimilating the past and shitting it out (Picasso); freaks do it by dirnt of their ignorance or defects (genuine outsider artists).
Sorry, Eric! And thanks!
Anon. - I'm totally interested in "comics," just not most comics. And I'm being somewhat disingenuous saying I don't read comics - I keep up with things mostly.
Jason- sorry, i was the anon that made that comment, and i think you're referring to uland too.
well first off you guys are clearly interested in comics, i wouldn't argue that.
but in reference to blaise's argument;
again it's kind of like you're choosing what you think is 'artful' and using critique and context (also subjective) to kind of prioritize your tastes over others. I mean let's be candid here: you're essentially saying, in my own blunt paraphrasing, that comics criticism isnt all that good and that the context of that criticism has then built a faulty foundation of artists for the medium. people who set the standard for the 'same old shit' based on an art paradigm.
I think your issue here is less with comics but more with your own personal notion of what a craftsperson and artist is. and again if we're being candid you dont seem to want to hide the fact that the notion of an 'artist' is obviously more where your tastes lie.
however, my beef mostly isnt your tastes or how you try to quantify them, but rather your complete lack of interest in having what seems to be a moderate or rounded debate. I mean you're talking in very broad strokes about the type of artists these people are and being reductive about them off the bat while admitting to know little about them. so doesnt that also a) narrow the scope of your vision and argument and b) kind of exemplify the results you hope to accomplish? Approaching the subject with a combination of ignorance and bias, is there any hope for some kind of critical gain in those conditions?
things would be so less seemingly condescending sometimes if instead of trying to talk about why Austin English 'really matters guys' you just talked about why his work appeals so much to you and how great you think his work is. in the end that's all you were doing, you were just trying to quantify why he's not only a personal favorite but a great artist.
i cant imagine the heinously long block of text i am about to see after hitting publish.
'Approaching the subject with a combination of ignorance and bias, is there any hope for some kind of critical gain in those conditions?'
i'm not sure...
i think i'm arguing that comics culture should be more ignorant of the past than it currently is. ignorant not in the sense of being 'less smart' about it, but ignorant in the sense of actively ignoring it.
i am promoting this minority taste/opinion so that others may feel less isolated in holding such an opinion. i feel like critics who uphold mainstream comics history are so dominant and adamant about their views that the minority voice seems 'heretical'. i don't think i'm actually saying anything that radical, it just doesn't seem to be expressed anywhere elsewhere.
"He offers little consistency throughout his work as he navigates a constantly evolving visual language. He seems to be focused on the present and future as opposed to the past. As a creator he does not belong to any tree of tradition."
English obviously has a "consistent style," look at his blog! his dolls look just like his drawings too! he is young and evolving, but that is not part of his intention, to be an artist ever in flux.
His tree of tradition is from other media: "modernist painting" (similar idea to beyer, panter, other raw artists that draw inspiration from painting). In the context of painting, English's work doesn't look so tree less. Compare him to contemporary comic artist Juliacks. is that fair?
Critics can only respond to what cartoonists are doing and have done, historically. If it's your goal ( Blaise) to push things in a direction where critics have to reassess what's good, or drop ideas about comics that you don't like, you have to give them a reason to do so. You have to do that work.
To me, saying Charles Schulz' comics are a part of "dead culture" is just really sad.
This is just whining from a spoiled kid who wants to be an art star, but is scared of failing.Go back home for a few months, Blaise. Your parents will probably let you queer your old bedroom for a while. Work some shitty job and do comics about real stuff.
Blaise is doing stuff that looks like some European comics I recall from the 90s. Austin is doing stuff that looks like tons of art brut drawings, but in sequence.
There is nothing wrong with that. Just stop pretending its something radically new.
HUMILITY. That's all we need. Then we might even get to like you.
I think that Blaise is arguing (or, at least, I would argue) not to change the opinions of critics but to propose an alternative. There are, I'm sure, many folks out there who don't give a crap about Toth, Bushmiller, Töpffer, Outcault, etc. and don't need to. It might help some people make good comics to be familiar with those folks, but it could be a hindrance to others. I can't, for instance, get away from using a Hunt 102 crowquill (though I've been experimenting with ballpoint pen lately) even though there are much more efficient ways to make comics, especially when the end product is printed. There are also less efficient, less obvious ways of doing things like how Austin's working. It's refreshing to me that he's using all sorts of different media and that his aesthetic choices seemingly have nothing to do with the history of comics. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with having influences outside of what we think of as this medium?
"What's wrong with that? What's wrong with having influences outside of what we think of as this medium?"
a: nothing, it's been done before. It can be good.
did painters like Warhol know who Da Vinci was? or did Warhol disregard art history?
look at Koon's work, how he describes his pieces(it is utterly rooted in art history). I heard him say once that his "Rabbit" was like "his mona lisa."
know your past, so that you can diverge from it.
There's nothing wrong with that. If that's what all this is about...
This was gonna be my next post:
"Anon - Are you trying to say that any artist in the twentieth century could've possibly been unaware of the Mona Lisa? I'm sure most anyone who makes comics will be aware of the basics (Kirby, Schulz, Crumb, whatever) and they'll probably have some curiosity about other work that came before them. But, yeah, the "disregarding" part is the most important.
U - Hmmm..."
But I'm starting to think I'm arguing to argue. This kind of rhetoric for me (critics be damned! Fuck this stupid thing! We need change!) is good for fueling me to work but ultimately not clear-headed. It is somewhat of a matter of personal taste. I am less interested in Bushmiller than Austin. There are different ways of reading comics. I like that Austin (sorry you're getting picked on, man) is making comics that aren't fantasy. To me, formalism is similar to fantasy in that it's not about exploring the world - it's about creating structures to map the world. There's so much within fantasy and formalism that's about protecting the self, putting together seamless answers and not allowing your basic assumptions to be questioned. Austin's coming from such an honest, no-answers place, and I like that.
"I'm sure most anyone who makes comics will be aware of the basics (Kirby, Schulz, Crumb, whatever) and they'll probably have some curiosity about other work that came before them."
WTF! two of those names are on Blaise's list of artist that he doesn't know much about, and doesn't care to. Isn't this post asking to disregard that "curiosity"?
write a post about things, outside of comics that you look to as "the future," things that excite you. Instead of going on and on about how you don't see anything in comics history. This conversation isn't productive. Instead of telling me to "forget about this," tell me what to look at.
You're totally right. Things that excite me are comics by Austin, actually everyone posting on this blog, Jason Miles, Frank Santoro, Andy Burkholder, Tom Kacynski, John Hankiewicz, Kevin Huizenga, lots of other folks making things now. You can't get better than Crumb, Clowes, G. Hernandez, Panter, and Lynda Barry for old stand-bys. I love Herriman and probably some other older stuff, and I'm familiar with a lot of it, but I'm more into looking ahead. I want to see weirder drawings, lots of different materials, personal stories, fake authenticity, and a lot of other stuff that I need to turn into a blog post/rallying call.
I was going to say a similar thing to Austin, but felt it was too late to weigh in, he's right though, there's a venue/review/opportunity for everything. Don't have to worry about it, the universe knows how to balance this stuff out.
I think what Blaise is trying to say is that commercial art (traditional comics) and contemporary art are two different institutions. The traditional cartoonists were most certainly commercial artists. Most of them worked-for-hire and new full well that they were illustrating a commercial product.
This gets down to the crux of what makes something an "art comic." Art Comic guys are trying to play in both sandboxes. It's the same thing that cartoonists like Bechdel and Satrapi are doing in the book world.
Like it or not it's noteworthy in that this is a relatively recent phenomenon. I think what Blaise is objecting to is the contemporary artworld embrasing what is essentially commercial art. This isn't new though. Look at Toulouse-Lautrec and Alphonse Mucha.
Terry Austin > Austin English
Uland > Flatland
Ha!
English Premiership > La Liga
Huh?
hi folks. hey blaise. thanks for the shout-out.
interesting discussion. some language is fierce, but there's this genuine-seeming vitality of really strong opinions, and the whole conversation is just flying all over the place.
nlaise I have to say you are vague, but as someone who has the benefit of knowing and speaking with you in 'real-time,' I always end up finding interesting questions. When I take the time to parse through your posts (which is not always easy) the same occurs.
I just want to throw in someone else's two bits on art - here is an excerpt from the very beginning of Theodore Adorno's 'Aesthetics,' first published in 1970. I think this quote outlines a lot of the questions that people who want to make art in a certain way still deal with, and which a lot of the conversation, in various ways, has touched on.
"It is self-evident that nothing concerning art is self-evident anymore, not its inner life, not its relation to the world, not even its right to exist. The forfeiture of what could be done spontaneously or unproblematically has not been compensated for by the open infinitude of new possibilities that reflection confronts. In many regards, expansion appears as contraction. The sea of the formerly inconceivable, on which around 1910 revolutionary art mvements set out, did not bestow the promised happiness of adventure. Instead, the process that was unleashed consumed the categories in the name of that for which it was undertaken. More was constantly pulled into the vortex of the newly taboo; everywhere artists rejoiced less over the newly won realm of freedom than that they immediately sought once again after ostensible yet scarcely adequate order."
Post a Comment