Read a comic by Kerry James Marshall in Esopus 14, and felt positive toward the comic and the artist.
Kerry James Marshall is someone i normally associate with painting.
In his art:21 episode Kerry James Marshall is working on comics while teaching painting to higher education students.
It is unknown how long Kerry James Marshall will make comics, what his purpose is in comics, in what forms will he invest into comics, etc. He is a stranger. His future citizenship seems unlikely and he probably won't go to comic-con.
The comics reader/critic/publisher may feel disinclined to invest (via attention, promotion, resources) into someone who does not use standardized networks/channels within the comics community.
The comics community is composed of those who usually assume ownership/inheritence of comics.
Because Kerry James Marshall does not locate himself within the comics community he is not subsidized by the comics community. He is, as a comics creator, economically independent of the comics community.
The comics community depends on a steady influx of income to survive. Citizens of the comics community are encouraged to support the community via buying comics, etc. Kerry James Marshall may not know about the comics community and he may choose not to interact with it.
As a citizen of a foreign community, and as someone who may be unaware of the comics community, Kerry James Marshall threatens the autonomy of the comics community's claim to comics.
Unlike filmmakers, who do not participate in the medium, Kerry James Marshall can be mistaken for a comics citizen. He may choose to speak authoritatively about comics. He may receive resources that were perhaps intended for the comics community.
Unlike filmmakers he does not have access to an industry which regularly does business with the comics community. There is less of an opportunity for short term profit/attention.
Unlike filmmakers his aim is noncommercial and therefore unclear.
50 comments:
i saw that art 21 and resented his flippant attitude towards the medium i hold dear. seemed like he traffics in irony, mixed with brittle nostalgia and social commentary. like a tiny lichtenstein.
by only participating in the 'creation' part of comics, then interacting commercially with the fine art world, he does have an admirable level of freedom from cliques and agendas (not to mention economy) of the comics community. but there's bullshit everywhere, he probably has to explain himself ad nauseam.
Again, it seems like you're mostly concerned about positions and postures that look like they indicate status, or some kind of place within a system.
I don't get why we should care about that stuff:
a) It's speculation and It's probably not at all accurate.
b) I don't really have time to read about comics unless it pertains to the actual content of a given work.
There is no "Comics Community". %80 of the people you see around you at a con will eventually lose interest in comics, or at least scale back their interest. It's a little boutique kind of form. I don't get this wrestling with what it means to be a part of some kind scene, or network, when no one is watching, and even those in it would rather be at home reading a comic.
Only the work matters.
Pirate: %99.9 of comics are total bullshit. A guy who was born in the 50's has no real reason to hold your pet medium dearly.
But, still, it looks like a pretty straight forward comic, right?
Blaise- will you tell us about the comic?
Ugghhh..FOrget it. I don't even care...I gotta stop posting here.
That's it. I'm done.
Good luck everyone.
not so fast, fellow
I disagree with most of this post. I can't take the idea of someone not 'aligning' themselves with the comics community as a 'threat' seriously (and I doubt we're supposed to).
But it's a really interesting subject because one of the failings of the omics world is that it doesn't reach beyond the 'comunity' often ENOUGH.
I'm ambivalent about Marshal's work, but there's a wealth of incredible artist that don't go to shows, don't submit to anthologies, but do make work that is public. They dont hustle but they're there if you try to make a little effort. There's little effort by many editors and publishers to look beyond the immediate community of people that just show up.
@austin i don't think the division i'm making is between threat and non-threat, it's between citizen and migrant - one uses established channels/networks and one does not; one owes loyalty to one community/economy, the other to another community/economy
@pirate i doubt he makes much money from his comics in the fine art world, but since he was awarded the genius grant he probably doesn't have to
from watching the art:21 i felt like he treats everything as systems that, with enough knowledge, can be mastered / used to one's advantage
he appears to have no spiritual investment in art, he approaches it as a craft
@uland it was a black and white comic involving black people talking/interacting on a public sidewalk. the drawings showed mastery/intimacy of comics craft/tradition, and the dialogue was written in what appeared to be stretched comic sans capital letters.
'one owes loyalty to one community/economy, the other to another community/economy'
i don't agree with that at all or even understand it.
as an artist you're loyal to your art.
'it's between citizen and migrant'
art abolishes these unreal distinctions.
Good one, Blaise. Some thoughts:
There are many “artists,” “cartoonists,” or whatever you want to call them working on both sides of your constructed art world/comics world division: Trenton Doyle Hancock, Esther Pearl Watson, Taylor McKimens, Souther Salazar, Chris Ware, etc.
Yet, all of the above do use “standardized networks/channels within the comics community.” Trenton Doyle Hancock (who also is featured in art21) has a book distributed by Picturebox, for instance.
Is Marhall interesting to you simply because his work is not distributed by Picturebox (or another comics publisher)? Why is that interesting?
Is your portrait of the insular, narrowly focused comics community a bit of a straw man? I think a growing part of the comics community does give attention to “foreigners” doing comics-like work, even if there is no commercial opportunity.
Are you creating an institutional theory of comics?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_theory_of_art
Is the institutional theory of art still very interesting? What if we explore a family resemblance theory of comics? (I can’t find the Wikipedia entry for the family resemblance theory of art, ha, so maybe I’ll expound later…)
A rambling response, sorry! I really enjoyed thinking about your post. Thanks for writing it.
This just in!
All artists are assholes, but not all assholes are artists.
Do onions have opinions?
@jed i felt good reading your comment
"Is Marhall interesting to you simply because his work is not distributed by Picturebox (or another comics publisher)?"
In the way that I'm framing this blog post, yes. Even though the comic stood on its own, as soon as I saw it was created by Kerry James Marshall, someone outside of comics (as defined by the comics community i participate in), I felt differently toward the comic and creator. I always feel a similar sensation when viewing comics venues that do not participate with the comics community.
"Is your portrait of the insular, narrowly focused comics community a bit of a straw man? I think a growing part of the comics community does give attention to “foreigners” doing comics-like work, even if there is no commercial opportunity."
Who are you thinking of? I think there is only interest in foreigners who are likely to generate profit within the comics community or who are dead. My interest in kjm is journalistic - introducing a foreign artist.
"Are you creating an institutional theory of comics?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_theory_of_art
I'm acknowledging that, from a perspective within this community that lays claim to 'comics' I have some bias on border issues. I feel like comics has not developed enough into an institution on the level of the artworld. Whereas art exists on an international scale, comics exists on a national/continental scale.
"Is the institutional theory of art still very interesting? What if we explore a family resemblance theory of comics?"
It seems like no one has explored the economic/social systems of comics. Art systems are in some ways more clearly mapped out; artists and critics/theorists have aggressive explored/exploitated art systems. Comics systems are still largely unexplored. What do you mean by family resemblences?
"It seems like no one has explored the economic/social systems of comics"
What the fuck are you talking about? How old are you? Because It's been explored plenty by the thousands of cartoonists trying (and mostly failing) to make a feasable living in a corrupt, nepotistic, faddish business the last 75 years.
".... as soon as I saw it was created by Kerry James Marshall, someone outside of comics (as defined by the comics community i participate in)"
But you're just assuming that your take on the particular "community" you're involved has relevance to not only KJM, but to us.
What is the relationship?
It's like you really think that the "art comics" world you swim in isn't just 30 young guys who're interested in drawing comics and also interested in contemporary art.
That's why I keep harping on just getting back to the work.The comics themselves. All of this talk is the height of pretense until you guys start churning out work that necessitates thinking about its role in the art world, or in culture at large. As it stands, it's mostly really hermetic kind of half-formed stuff.
I think you've painted yourself in a corner by wanting things both ways. You seem to want to be taken seriously as an artist, but you want the kind of freedom to be amorphous and oblique that comics makes available. In other words, it's stuff that can't really be taken seriously. It isn't made seriously and isn't about anything serious.
So your response seems to be to come with theories as to why "The comics community" you're a part of isn't paid serious attention.
"Even though the comic stood on its own, as soon as I saw it was created by Kerry James Marshall, someone outside of comics (as defined by the comics community i participate in), I felt differently toward the comic and creator. I always feel a similar sensation when viewing comics venues that do not participate with the comics community."
Is making a comic a way of "not participat(ing) with the comics community" ?
"The comics community depends on a steady influx of income to survive. Citizens of the comics community are encouraged to support the community via buying comics, etc. Kerry James Marshall may not know about the comics community and he may choose not to interact with it."
How does the KJM comic differentiate with a "comics community" comic, it seems like you are saying that KJM may not know that he needs to sell his comics to be apart of the community? Was his comic free?
"he probably won't go to comic-con."
will anyone on this blog go to comic-con?
@uland when i say 'the comics community i participate in' i mean the broader community (perhaps 'industry' would be more accurate) oriented around comics that exists in america - anyone who claims inheritence to the traditions/lineages of american and to some degree non-american comics
@anon 'Is making a comic a way of "not participat(ing) with the comics community"?'
It can be
'How does the KJM comic differentiate with a "comics community" comic, it seems like you are saying that KJM may not know that he needs to sell his comics to be apart of the community? Was his comic free?'
Selling comics within the comics community is one way of participating in the comics community / no
'will anyone on this blog go to comic-con?'
yes
where did you find the KJM comic? in a store?
He's a great painter. And a terrible comics artist. I worked with a gallery that showed his work. Super interesting, nice guy but sort of dumb when the conversation turned to comics.
Just sayin'. As usual.
Nayland Blake make zines. But who cares? He sells them for 500$ each as "art objects".
it would be fun to buy a pamphlet comic in a museum gift shop. better than buying an eraser or a bad clock.
i'm not sure if i would feel weird about it though
does panter sell his minis at his art shows?
i am honestly curious, since he has both paintings and 'zines' and requests money for both of them.
it is truly fun to purchase a ninja comic after a lightning bolt show
You could write the same post about Taylor McKimens and say that he IS invested in both communities. And he really is. He originally wanted to be a comics artist (favorite comic: The Maxx) but was/is a good enough painter to make it a go of it selling paintings. What would you do? Pursue selling one painting for 5,000$ or make another newsprint zine and make maybe a hundred bux? Yet he also comes to every MoCCA and is very interested in comics - so you COULD make the same argument the other way around.
is that why katherine bernhardt and brian bellot do not make comix
"is that why katherine bernhardt and brian bellot do not make comix"
Yep. They love comics and actually I was going to publish newsprint comics of theirs back in 2006 but I just ran out of money, haha. The idea was that I would do layouts for them and we would collaborate.
What you have to remember is that most painters are not conversant in comics sequencing. Katherine makes amazing images and Brian can do great sequencing in his collage books BUT the idea of putting figures in motion THRU a landscape IN SEQUENCE, (comics) is Greek to most painters and fine artists.
Taylor, on the other hand has a fairly good grasp of how to work scale and move fiures thru space in sequence.
or is it not an economical distinction, but a process distinction
they want a series of single images, not a 'story'
the economy of it seems more about 'time spent' than 'community' oriented, and of course, 'time' is 'money.'
sorry i didnt post fast enuff
frank took the thunder, made nice points
back to the cabin with me
"or is it not an economical distinction, but a process distinction"
Ha. I love real time blogging.
It is an economical choice tho. They are in their world which is focused on single images mostly. That is their pusuit.
Nayland Blake showed zines in his exhibition at Matthew Marks gallery - but you weren't allowed to pick them up and they weren't for sale in the gift shop. They were for sale just like a painting but you couldn't LOOK at it. Remember that much of fine art sales is about how to display something. YTou can't display a whole zine or comic at once - you can as individual pages but WTF? that's not a comic or a zine
So thoiise guys make Art. It's an economical decision in part, yes. That is not to say that they are NOT interested in the form, tho.
(Last one, I'm hopped up on cough medicine)
"That is not to say that they are NOT interested in the form, tho."
Meaning I think they are interested in comics/zines/sequential art whatever and pursue it like they do a painting or a collage or a video, etc -
It's a fascinating subject actually. Think about it. I know this is going to sound like I'm bullshitting you, but I tried to get Francesco Clemente to do a comic. He really liked comics. And he really had a hard time understanding the shifts in scale on the page when he tried to draw one. He could bang out a six foot by six foot painting in a day. Comics were different. He said it was difficult to manage the proportions "so realistically" and at such a small scale, like miniature. He'd ask me how I could draw on a bunch of Post-Its and put them together on a piece of 11 x 17 paper - which was the size of his smallest watercolor pad.
Also, I think he saw each panel as separate. A symbol. Not so directly connected with the next image. And so his panel combinations were more like collage, like a fresco mural where jumps in scale and in the narrative are less radical because they are felt on the wall, not on the page.
When I look at KJM's comics they look really awkward, no? Like he gets the framing but not the sequencing.
That's what I'm looking at anyways. The economics and all the other shit is there yeah, but I think the really interesting thing is how other artists who make it up out of their head see comics as a form.
And yah, I know, that includes photographers.
June 18, 2010 12:03 AM
KJM's awkwardness is the best part about that comic---that he doesn't get the sequencing is what makes it alive and personal. I don't love it but i get an interesting charge from it...and the more people who don't know the 'sequencing' to tell stories with pictures, the better.
awesome
please drink cough syrup more often, frank
that goes for everyone on this blog
I can't get my head around drawing for scale either. That's exactly why I can't draw comics.I've written out probably a hundred scripts, but just can't make the leap. It always seems wrong, wrong, wrong.
Frank— You need to write a "Making Comics The Santoro Way".
The Santoro comments alone make this a great post!
KJM is one of my favorite contemporary painters, and I had no idea he was interested in comics, but looking at it now, I can kinda see why he is.
I wish more posts on this blog were written in plain English I could understand, because they seem so thoughtful, but I can barely make heads or tails of some of the jargon. Not a dig, just a comment. I mean it in a positive way.
Is this comic available only in that mag, or where? Is it online anywhere? I'd love to read it.
As to the connection between the comics world industry and the art world industry, I started making comics because it was a way of making art that avoided art world bullshit. So naturally I'm interested in what's going on nowadays, but some of it makes me bristle.
"As a citizen of a foreign community, and as someone who may be unaware of the comics community, Kerry James Marshall threatens the autonomy of the comics community's claim to comics."
For me, one of the interesting things about comics (maybe the MOST interesting thing about comics, at least at first) was that I viewed them as claimable by ANYBODY. They're a basic method of expression that people within or without a "comics community" and/or "art-world community" understand and appreciate.
Again, please don't take my comments about jargon and style the wrong way, I'm just a little thickheaded and give up easily when faced with that sort of thing.
I think the reason I ended up drawing comics (outside of the fact that that's what I always wanted to do) was that the objects the art world manufactures seem so puffed up. Comics are just what they are. You can draw (or paint or collage, etc) something and reproduce it infinitely so that everyone can enjoy the content of it. The content is not tied to historicity; comics have no mysterious power as individualized objects like paintings, sculptures, assemblages. I like those things, too, but I love how humble comics are. I think this is what Blaise and I are trying to say when we talk about comics on the computer - they're so much closer to pure content.
I do think the art world wrestles with some interesting ideas and ways of making images, though. There is, of course highbrow bullcrap, but what bothers me about the comics community is that folks seem to only want to engage with comics history, or to be reactionary and steer clear of Aht.
KJM, I think, and other fine artists who make sequential art seem to not be engaging with the same concerns the comics community engages with (things like "what is comics?" or "how do I draw so that I can best create rhythm" or "what is an interesting page layout" or "how can a single panel be a comic?" etc.), and, thus, they're outsiders, whereas Blaise or Taylor Mckimens or Austin seem to be insiders attempting to apply ideas they've come across from other cultures to comix.
@jason art history is a more exciting narrative than comics history...
well i guess that's what art is - a grand narrative
comics are a local narrative, and in that sense they are a more exciting narrative, for me, because the characters involved are the people i know
"KJM, I think, and other fine artists who make sequential art seem to not be engaging with the same concerns the comics community engages with (things like "what is comics?" or "how do I draw so that I can best create rhythm" or "what is an interesting page layout" or "how can a single panel be a comic?" etc.), and, thus, they're outsiders..."
As a reader, it does nothing for me to label any artist an outsider, or to write off any art as 'being all about making money' or writing out a set of rules in my mind that an artist must obey (or think about/be aware of) in order to be an artist in their chosen medium.
It's all art and if you respect the artist in question, I think it's worth your time to eject any impulses about what YOU want. Looking at art isn't easy...you have to check a lot of yourself at the door. Calling artists outsiders or pointing out what they should do defeats (in my mind) the purpose of letting art in.
this is the inside
"Unlike filmmakers his aim is noncommercial and therefore unclear." -BL
What are you even saying?
also, uland:
i think your drawing are incredible and you should do a comic, the more out of scale the better.
i second austin's vote of encouragement, uland.
if all else fails, trace the outline of a credit card 6 times on a sheet of paper and fill those spaces up with anything that pleases your fancy.
when your configurations refuse to align, you will have completed a valiant first draft. then you can call it "rough pencils" and sigh, heavily.
i'll pray for you.
...all of you.
"Calling artists outsiders or pointing out what they should do defeats (in my mind) the purpose of letting art in."
Totally.
@austin art has been gang warfare for a long time now. art brings together some people and alienates others - always.
Thanks for the encouragement guys. I hold out some hope, but the more I draw, the more that becomes a distinct thing; Reading comics and writing out comics scripts have nothing to do with drawing to me anymore. Maybe I'll bridge that gap some day...
Austin wrote: "It's all art and if you respect the artist in question, I think it's worth your time to eject any impulses about what YOU want. Looking at art isn't easy...you have to check a lot of yourself at the door. Calling artists outsiders or pointing out what they should do defeats (in my mind) the purpose of letting art in."
Hear, hear!
Blaise wrote: "art brings together some people and alienates others - always."
Ditto.
Jason wrote: "I think the reason I ended up drawing comics (outside of the fact that that's what I always wanted to do) was that the objects the art world manufactures seem so puffed up. Comics are just what they are. You can draw (or paint or collage, etc) something and reproduce it infinitely so that everyone can enjoy the content of it. The content is not tied to historicity; comics have no mysterious power as individualized objects like paintings, sculptures, assemblages. I like those things, too, but I love how humble comics are. ...
I do think the art world wrestles with some interesting ideas and ways of making images, though. There is, of course highbrow bullcrap, but what bothers me about the comics community is that folks seem to only want to engage with comics history, or to be reactionary and steer clear of Aht."
Jason-- your reasons for making comics are similar to my own... I love the ability of comics to deflate highbrow notions, and I love their reproducibility, however I do feel that comics have a mysterious power, and I was always clear with myself that Comics Were Art with a capital A, just like Painting, Sculpture, etc. What I'm doing in my comics is what I was doing in my painting, but in a more accessible, reproducible, affordable form.
As far as comics artists being only interested in comics history vs. Art, if that's true then that's really sad. I take inspiration and direction from whatever I come across, whether it's an old comic book, a song, a poem, a commercial, or a KJM painting. Not saying that's how it SHOULD be for everybody, but I can't imagine cutting myself off from the world like that.
John - I totally feel like comics can be capital A art. I feel like they're similar to music and movies in that they're less object, more content oriented. All of those media can be "Art," but they're able to be enjoyed in their final, complete forms by lots of people.
I feel like "Art" in the last couple centuries has had to work hard to maintain the scarcity of the art object so that it continues to be a valuable commodity that can be sold by galleries. I love how reproducible media subverts this.
Let's hope people keep finding lots of sources of inspiration!
@john i feel like comics are like pirates on the open seas
@jason i feel like performance, video, film, etc are all attempts to make objects of nonobjects by placing them in an art context
a 'performance' is a 'thing'
'i feel like "Art" in the last couple centuries has had to work hard to maintain the scarcity of the art object so that it continues to be a valuable commodity that can be sold by galleries'
!
that's pretty smart
is that in that book?
@B- yeah, a performance is a thing, and its ephemeral temporal existence can be capitalized on, exploited because of its scarcity, but essential parts of its visual and audio aspects can be recorded and copies of that recording can be diseminated via YouTube pretty much for free to millions of people.
There will always be phenomenological details that will be missed (smells, angles, temperature, audience members), and I'm not sure what vital information they might contribute, but works that were made to be reproduced (comics, movies, albums) are "things," not "a thing."
@I feel like- Not from a book, but probably just recycled Walter Benjamin or Baudrillard...
Post a Comment