Almost posted this in response to this post on The Panelists, but it didn't seem appropriate to set such self-involvement in that context:
"Blaise and I were talking today, and I mentioned this post, said that I hadn't yet read it, but it made me aware of his "Magic Forest" page again and reminded me of some of his earlier work like his very perfect zine Wigwam or other drawings similar in aesthetic. This work feels very unlike comics to me, and it makes me want to give up the medium altogether because comics are almost never this graceful."
"Magic Forest" reads as comics, I think, mainly because Blaise is known as a cartoonist. He told me today that he at one point decided that everything he did would be comics, thus freeing him from the question "what is comics?" I feel like I come at this from the completely opposite direction.
Everything I make is so informed by comics that I think I need to tell myself now that I should stop making comics in order to give myself license to explore non-narrative ways of expressing myself aesthetically.
I have a hard time feeling comfortable making art that isn't comics, but comics are a losing proposition. This blog is much more fun because people will read it and react directly, and I can react back, etc.
With comics, I feel like I put too much effort into something that doesn't communicate effectively. The immediate payoff that comes from blogging or more traditionally "artistic" pursuits like drawing/painting is so much different, so much purer an exploration of my impulses than cartooning.
I am so entrenched in this - how to define myself?
25 comments:
Hey gang I compiled the most used words in Blaise Larmee comics reviews from January 2010 to the present using http://www.wordcounter.com:
DELIBERATELY x97
DELIBERATE x95
INTENTIONALLY X94
UNCONVENTIONAL x48
CHALLENGING X44
DIFFICULT X38
COMPLEX x37
OBSCURES X36
EXPERIMENTAL X34
AMBIGUOUS x29
NARRATIVE x29
REPRESENTATION x21
ABSTRACTION x15
EVOCATIVE x14
CONVEYS x13
EMPLOYS x13
NON-LINEAR x11
CONVENTION X6
TONALITY x5
Hear are Jason's, minus the ones that repeated with Blaise's:
CHAOTIC x57
DECIPHER x38
DENSITY x35
DENSE x31
PARSE x29
PROCESS x25
OBFUSCATES x24
LINE x21
INCOMPREHENSIBLE x20
AESTHETIC x16
CHALLENGE x15
COLLAGE x12
These are from reviews of their comics btw. I used http://www.wordcounter.com to compile them but you can also use MS Word.
The most used phrase for both creators was "deliberately obscures" (x5)
"This work feels very unlike comics to me, and it makes me want to give up the medium altogether because comics are almost never this graceful."
To me, that's all the more reason to make graceful comics. Because they can be graceful, but most people don't really try to go there, because they get so caught up in the narrative and the characters (where comics history excels).
"Magic Forest" reads as comics, I think, mainly because Blaise is known as a cartoonist."
I disagree on that. I'll be doing some more posts on works that read as comics by artists that aren't known as cartoonists, hopefully so I can bring some coherence to my thoughts on this. (For instance, Deborah Turbeville, Pierre Alechinsky, Cy Twombly, Barnett Newman, etc.)
I hope you do keep making comics, Jason, even if you don't see them as such.
I need to think about making art differently. Deliberately trying to not think of what I'm doing as comics might be helpful. I don't feel it's important to think of what I make in terms of comics. I have several commitments at the moment, though. Not sure where I'll go after that.
I think I'm often making art thinking about comics, but to see how to stretch them into something else. Lately that's getting down to juxtaposed imagery and word/image friction. Which, in some ways, is comics at a base level. See what can build up from there.
Derik, it's nice to be a Cy Twombly fan and live in the Philadelphia area, yes?
Jason, keep doing what you're doing.
Ian: Those Ilium paintings of Twombly's are my favorite works in a museum anywhere. I love them. (I'll be writing on them as comics at some point in the near future.)
I'm feeling more positive about things today, but I wonder a lot about the purpose of thinking about Twombly (who I love), Baldessari, Rauschenburg, or whomever as comics. Does this make comics better?
Part of why I wanted to start blogging is to destroy these definitions and just make art that happens to be comics (co-mix, not formalist comics) because that is the context I can't escape.
I don't read very many comics anymore. I rarely have time and few things spark my interest. I liked Crickets 3 as a not-profound but really decent example of comics as storytelling (as opposed to aesthetic exploration), but it depresses me that there aren't ten comics like that coming out every week.
I was going to pick up the new L&R cuz I heard it was really great, but I have only so much time and money and Patti Smith's memoir or Lydia Davis's translation of Proust seem like a better way to use my resources. So why ally myself with comics?
I love sequencing words and images to make stories, cubistic thought explorations, evoke scenes, aka
"visual art that tells stories–or presents situations and ideas, or juxtaposes ideas, or makes arguments, or breaks down scenes or settings into multiple aspects–via successive still images in series."
(cribbed from Charles Hatfield - my current favorite definition of comics), but I've been short on time lately, and it frustrates me.
My goal is to not take on any more random projects and buckle down and make a longer work again. Not sure where I'll go after that.
stop trying to get everyone's attention with "grand pronouncements" Overby!
Sorry - I'm a compulsive self-definer
Vomits Vomits is right on: "Overby is an extreme example of mulling over and re-visiting concepts long-term"
"Does this make comics better?"
I think it can expand the ways we think about comics as a form and that can, one hopes, expand the kinds of comics that are made.
I probably read too many comics, but I think I get more out of non-comics work as far as artistic/creative ideas.
in comics
she
might 'act'
.
in 'art'
she
is dead forever
Agreed. I guess it might be helpful for the future.
"Does this make comics better?"
I actually worded this poorly. What I meant was: does it legitimize comics to consider Alechinsky, for example, as comics? Why does it need to be comics? I guess we are attached to "the form" and are interested in making art according to its parameters, and thinking as broadly as possible about what comics can be will only make our work more interesting.
@On Potential
nice
The revolution of everything
Manifestoes of everything have been written through the centuries. I wonder, how could there be more than one? A manifesto is supposed to sum up an idea or movement. It will be something that maybe tells you to spur to action. For centuries, people have kept saying that theirs was the new manifesto. But I propose that no real manifesto has been written yet, or people won't stop writing anything. Therefore, I will define what a manifesto is, the first time it has ever been defined before.
The Apple iPhone dictionary defines manifesto, 'a book that lists the words of a language in alphabetical order and gives their meaning.' But I will propose that is not the most accurate definition of the manifesto. Let's take a look at the etymology of the world. MANIFESTO contains the letters, M, A, N, I, F, E, S, T, O. There are 'nine' letters of the word. If you change the I to O, this spells 'none.' The reason for this is, because MANIFESTO has none letters in it: only one number, ONE. This symbolizes that there can only be one manifesto.
"immediate payoff" "my impulses"
WHEN YOU CONCENTRATE ON SOMETHING
YOUR FACE LITE UP LIKE AN ANGEL.
WHEN YOU CONCENTRATE ON SOMETHING
YOUR GLOW AGAINST THE NIGHT.
HOW PLEASANT YOU LOOK THROUGH
THE DAY AND NIGHT.
HERE'S TO SAY THAT YOU ARE AN
ANGEL THAT GLOW AGAINST THE NIGHT.
i don't think anyone can define themself all though i find it an interesting topic of contemplation i feel it leads to falling into your own asshole in the end.
one day at the video shop i over hear'd a conversation where a man was compairing the coen brothers with hitchcock and i found this wrong in my mind
later i came to the personal conclusion that to compair a living artist{s} to a now dead artist was foolish and unfair since the dead artist has a finite and completed body of werk to annalise and draw comparisons through
while the living artist is still changing and creating new art which can change the bigger picture of who/what they are.
i feel a devil move in me
and the candle wont reveal it
but i know i know there is there
is a cavern well beyond me
this cavern last forever and
i will never reach its end
PURPLE JUICE
/
WHITE KNIGHT
2001
/
WHAT A SITE
"What I meant was: does it legitimize comics to consider Alechinsky, for example, as comics?"
I don't know, and I don't care. I'm not concerned with "legitimizing." I make it, it's legitimate. I think comics are past the legitimizing point.
"Why does it need to be comics?"
It doesn't need to be comics; we don't even need to call it comics, but we can consider the work in the light of comics and consider comics in the light of the other work.
"I guess we are attached to "the form" and are interested in making art according to its parameters, and thinking as broadly as possible about what comics can be will only make our work more interesting."
Exactly.
@tim goodyear
"later i came to the personal conclusion that to compair a living artist{s} to a now dead artist was foolish and unfair since the dead artist has a finite and completed body of werk to annalise and draw comparisons through
while the living artist is still changing and creating new art which can change the bigger picture of who/what they are."
You're right. We're all working in the context of our time, and that makes a lot more sense than trying to be universal anyway.
@Derik
" I think comics are past the legitimizing point."
I don't know that this is true, but it's beside the point, I guess. It's probably good that the artier & more intellectually challenging comics are mostly off the cultural radar.
The death of art can be defining it before it occurs.
This gives art a license to rise from the dead, most gloriously.
Post a Comment