cookies
Hammerstein
ideal?
Simon Fraser
Only if you like Water biscuits.
S.
The Semi-Official Nikolai Dante Website
http://www.cybergoth.net/tuws/Dante/Index.html
ronan
could you repeat the question?
Ro.
nervo...@hotmail.com
"G.I'S! G.I'S! KILL! KILL! KILL!"
Hammerstein wrote in message <7js40i$mep$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
Hammerstein
> ahh....
> could you repeat the question?
Yes, right, of course, sorry.
If comics are a 'baked beans' industry are 'toasty' characters not ideal?
:)
hehehe seriously now...
It has been said that comic art and comics in general are a reductive
medium. So in theory the purest comic would have stick men in it. Not all
realistic details are needed, characters can be recognised by their iconic
nature/appearence.
It has also been said that american superheroes are like cookie cutters
because they are used simply as the framework for their stories. They are
like patterns/icons.
Now since american superheroes are this way are they not the ideal type of
characters for the comics medium?
Paul J Holden
cr...@moran.freeserve.co.uk says...
> ronan <psyc...@tinet.ie> wrote:
>
> > ahh....
> > could you repeat the question?
>
> Yes, right, of course, sorry.
>
> If comics are a 'baked beans' industry are 'toasty' characters not ideal?
> :)
>
> hehehe seriously now...
>
> It has been said that comic art and comics in general are a reductive
> medium. So in theory the purest comic would have stick men in it. Not all
> realistic details are needed, characters can be recognised by their iconic
> nature/appearence.
>
The way I approach comics - is to think of the ART as a reductive medium
(the actual drawn panels on page art) Harking back to the brilliant book
by Scott McCloud people find it easier to identify directly with simply
drawn characters - this in NO WAY AT ALL means that the stories written
need to be reductive (or dumbed down) in fact on a number of things that
I've worked on the cartoony nature of my art has helped the complexity of
the story (yeah - I wish).
> It has also been said that american superheroes are like cookie cutters
> because they are used simply as the framework for their stories. They are
> like patterns/icons.
Don't mix the medium with the message - I think.
>
> Now since american superheroes are this way are they not the ideal type of
> characters for the comics medium?
>
> > Hammerstein wrote:
> > >If comics are a 'reductive medium' then isn't a 'cookie cutter' character
> > >ideal?
>
>
>
>
(course it's late and I may be mis reading this thread)
- pj
Paul J Holden
cr...@moran.freeserve.co.uk says...
> Paul J Holden <pa...@nospam.pulpkitchen.idps.co.uk> wrote
>
> > Don't mix the medium with the message - I think.
>
>
> The art is reductive but the stories and characters don't need to be?
>
> I was taking the style and thinking what kind of character would be ideal
> for this. Instead of taking the character and thinking what style would be
> ideal for the character.
>
Comics and Art being as subjective as they are it's not up to me to say
which approach is right - but I would say that you shouldn't rule out one
over the other.
Good example of Reduction in the medium is Watchmen - here a delibertly
simple panel layout is used (every page is a very static layout) and
simple artwork (well, on the surface simple - and as all artists know -
that's the hardest way to draw) belies an incredible complex and rich
storyline.
> That thinking could lead to all sorts of things. The character might not
> even be suited to the comics medium.
Character, character, character? what about plot, plot, plot?
- pj
(put 'em up)
Paul J Holden
> > simple panel layout is used (every page is a very static layout) and
> > simple artwork (well, on the surface simple - and as all artists know -
> > that's the hardest way to draw) belies an incredible complex and rich
> > storyline.
>
>
er... Just cus I acknowledge that as being the hardest way to draw does
NOT mean that I'm anywhere within shouting distance of Mr Gibbons - just
that, speaking as an artist I know how difficult it can be to draw just
the exact correct line in just the exact correct place - one of the basic
lessons I was taught at Art O level (which I failed :). (Like
Salutori(sp?) in Amadeus my curse is to recognise talent but to be unable
to attain it :))
> I've come too the conclusion that writer and artist should a symbotic
> relationship.
>
> The writer should be inspired by the art and visa versa.
>
Well, the writer should hopefully write for the artists strength - but
most of the time (and I'm sure one of the 2000ad droids can either back
me up here or contradict me) the writer can never be sure who's going to
illustrate the story.
> I really don't like the idea that the artist is just a tool.
>
Me Neither!
I don't think of the artist as a tool, although I admit that the art is a
tool - a tool which can convey emotions etc - in the same way that the
actors craft is a tool (rather than the actor)
> > > That thinking could lead to all sorts of things. The character might
> not
> > > even be suited to the comics medium.
> >
> > Character, character, character? what about plot, plot, plot?
>
> They go hand in hand like lovers in the park.
Awww... how sweet ;)
- pj
Paul J Holden
> > >
> > er... Just cus I acknowledge that as being the hardest way to draw does
> > NOT mean that I'm anywhere within shouting distance of Mr Gibbons
>
> The reason I was thinking this is because he was willing to hold himself
> back for the sake of the story. Another artist may not have been able to
> hold back the desire to show off and so detract from the flow of the story.
> Does that make sense?
>
Makes perfect sense, but if I were Mr Gibbons illustrating the Watchmen I
would be humbled by it. I dunno, I have no direct experience of this, but
I think it's only the Image generation of Artists who want to show off
and dazzle - whereas the older 2000ad generation (and some of the current
crop of 2000ad artists) are more than happy to illustrate the story in
whatever method best suits the story. The Story is Mother, the Story is
Father ... er... oops.
> I was in no way trying to detract from your artwork.
You've seen some of my artwork? (just curious)
> May I also say that
> sometimes an artist like yourself can be his own worst critic, so don't just
> accept all these negative vibes Mr Salutori is sending.
>
> The artist and writer should just hang out once in a while, so they get on
> the same wave length.
>
Yup, I agree - but it's not always possible given the rate that 2000ad
consumes material.
- pj
Paul J Holden
andyd...@aol.com says...
> >> I really don't like the idea that the artist is just a tool.
> >
> >Me Neither!
> >I don't think of the artist as a tool, although I admit that the art is a
> >tool - a tool which can convey emotions etc - in the same way that the
> >actors craft is a tool (rather than the actor)
>
>
> Robert McKee maintains that, in film, the writer is the only true creator.
> Everyone else (actors, director, cinematographer, editor) merely *interpret*
> the writer's vision. Could the same be said to be true of comics?
>
> < /cat amongst pigeons >
>
>
True, to a very large extent (IMHO) - but the interpretation of the
script by the artist (actors, director, cinematographer, editor) can make
it either something much much greater than what's written simply on the
page or completly destroy whats written on the page.
And if you think that Robert McKee fella had a wacky opinion, what about
John K. (the creator of such classics as Ren & Stimpy) who maintained
that it's only the artist who can create - the writer, editor, etc are
all secondary to the artist.
And just adding to the previous comments about the writer and artist
should be working in total harmony - does that mean that in an ideal
world the writer/artist would be one and the same?
> Andy Diggle, 2000 AD & The Judge Dredd Megazine
>
> "As I speak, the last elements of Justice Department resistance are being
> quelled. The Judges are history. From now on, you will be taking your orders
> from me."
>
Was that not a quote from Logan as he stumbled drunkenly into 2000ad hq?
Paul J Holden
> > should be working in total harmony - does that mean that in an ideal
> > world the writer/artist would be one and the same?
>
>
> How about telepathy?
>
>
>
>
I knew you'd say that
(to quote the Judge Dreddful movie)
- pj
Hammerstein
> Don't mix the medium with the message - I think.
Are you saying...
The art is reductive but the stories and characters don't need to be?
I was taking the style and thinking what kind of character would be ideal
for this. Instead of taking the character and thinking what style would be
ideal for the character.
That thinking could lead to all sorts of things. The character might not
Simon Fraser
<cr...@moran.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Paul J Holden <pa...@nospam.pulpkitchen.idps.co.uk> wrote
>
>> Don't mix the medium with the message - I think.
>
>Are you saying...
>
>The art is reductive but the stories and characters don't need to be?
I'm with Paul here.
If I may illustrate the pint with 2 examples that spring to mind:
Japanese Haiku poetry is well known for it's distillation of ideas
into the simplest, 3 line stanza.
eg
Computers think now
we are being replaced by
machines that don't cry
or
Somewhere in this snow
as I ran, rolled and tumbled
I lost my house key
Mark Twain once wrote a letter to a friend in which he said " I
apologise for the length of this letter, I did not have time to be
brief"
There is nothing in the idea of 'reduction' that implies that the
ideas must also be reduced. Rather it is the striving for clarity and
the greater transparency of the medium.
Comics will tend to use and reuse 'cookie cutter characters' because
it allows simple creation and endless repetition.Both advantages for a
very industrialised medium. It is far more challenging however to
create new and individual forms each time and it is the artist/writer
that does so who is exceptional and worth reading.
Simon.F
Hammerstein
Paul J Holden <pa...@nospam.pulpkitchen.idps.co.uk> wrote
> Good example of Reduction in the medium is Watchmen - here a delibertly
> simple panel layout is used (every page is a very static layout) and
> simple artwork (well, on the surface simple - and as all artists know -
> that's the hardest way to draw) belies an incredible complex and rich
> storyline.
Gosh artists can be so humble.
I've come too the conclusion that writer and artist should a symbotic
relationship.
The writer should be inspired by the art and visa versa.
I really don't like the idea that the artist is just a tool.
> > That thinking could lead to all sorts of things. The character might
not
> > even be suited to the comics medium.
>
> Character, character, character? what about plot, plot, plot?
They go hand in hand like lovers in the park.
> - pj
> (put 'em up)
Hammerstein
> There is nothing in the idea of 'reduction' that implies that the
> ideas must also be reduced. Rather it is the striving for clarity and
> the greater transparency of the medium.
Clarity is good.
> Comics will tend to use and reuse 'cookie cutter characters' because
> it allows simple creation and endless repetition.
Ok.
> Both advantages for a very industrialised medium.
Uh huh.
> It is far more challenging however to
> create new and individual forms each time and it is the artist/writer
> that does so who is exceptional and worth reading.
Ok but just cause its new don't mean its good.
Hammerstein
Paul J Holden <pa...@nospam.pulpkitchen.idps.co.uk> wrote
> > Gosh artists can be so humble.
> >
> er... Just cus I acknowledge that as being the hardest way to draw does
> NOT mean that I'm anywhere within shouting distance of Mr Gibbons
That is not what I meant. What I meant was that Gibbons must be humble.
The reason I was thinking this is because he was willing to hold himself
back for the sake of the story. Another artist may not have been able to
hold back the desire to show off and so detract from the flow of the story.
Does that make sense?
I was in no way trying to detract from your artwork. May I also say that
sometimes an artist like yourself can be his own worst critic, so don't just
accept all these negative vibes Mr Salutori is sending.
> Well, the writer should hopefully write for the artists strength - but
> most of the time (and I'm sure one of the 2000ad droids can either back
> me up here or contradict me) the writer can never be sure who's going to
> illustrate the story.
The artist and writer should just hang out once in a while, so they get on
the same wave length.
Simon Fraser
<cr...@moran.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Paul J Holden <pa...@nospam.pulpkitchen.idps.co.uk> wrote
>
>> > Gosh artists can be so humble.
>> >
>> er... Just cus I acknowledge that as being the hardest way to draw does
>> NOT mean that I'm anywhere within shouting distance of Mr Gibbons
>
>That is not what I meant. What I meant was that Gibbons must be humble.
>The reason I was thinking this is because he was willing to hold himself
>back for the sake of the story. Another artist may not have been able to
>hold back the desire to show off and so detract from the flow of the story.
>Does that make sense?
Yes and it's quite true.
It is unforunate when an artists ego gets in the way of the story he
is supposed to be telling.
>
>I was in no way trying to detract from your artwork. May I also say that
>sometimes an artist like yourself can be his own worst critic, so don't just
>accept all these negative vibes Mr Salutori is sending.
An artist should be his own worst critic. It can be very hard to get
anyone else to give an honest and informed opinion.
I thinki it was 'Salieri' by the way.
>
>> Well, the writer should hopefully write for the artists strength - but
>> most of the time (and I'm sure one of the 2000ad droids can either back
>> me up here or contradict me) the writer can never be sure who's going to
>> illustrate the story.
>
>The artist and writer should just hang out once in a while, so they get on
>the same wave length.
For some collaborations it's not so much a matter of being on a
different wavelength as an entirely different electromagnetic
spectrum.
Simon F.
Hammerstein
Paul J Holden <pa...@nospam.pulpkitchen.idps.co.uk> wrote
> > I was in no way trying to detract from your artwork.
> You've seen some of my artwork? (just curious)
I think I went to your site once and saw some.
Paul J Holden
> An artist should be his own worst critic. It can be very hard to get
> anyone else to give an honest and informed opinion.
>
>
*cough*
;)
- pj
AndyDiggle
>
>I don't think of the artist as a tool, although I admit that the art is a
>tool - a tool which can convey emotions etc - in the same way that the
>actors craft is a tool (rather than the actor)
< cat amongst pigeons >
Robert McKee maintains that, in film, the writer is the only true creator.
Everyone else (actors, director, cinematographer, editor) merely *interpret*
the writer's vision. Could the same be said to be true of comics?
< /cat amongst pigeons >
Andy Diggle, 2000 AD & The Judge Dredd Megazine
"As I speak, the last elements of Justice Department resistance are being
quelled. The Judges are history. From now on, you will be taking your orders
from me."
Doomsday: Megazine 56
Simon Fraser
>>> I really don't like the idea that the artist is just a tool.
>>
>>Me Neither!
>>I don't think of the artist as a tool, although I admit that the art is a
>>tool - a tool which can convey emotions etc - in the same way that the
>>actors craft is a tool (rather than the actor)
>
>< cat amongst pigeons >
>
>Robert McKee maintains that, in film, the writer is the only true creator.
>Everyone else (actors, director, cinematographer, editor) merely *interpret*
>the writer's vision. Could the same be said to be true of comics?
>
>< /cat amongst pigeons >
Robert McKee is of course a writer who makes his living telling other
writers how to write films. If he went and told his audience about
the 'Auteur' theory and that the Directors' vision provides the true
vision of the cinematic art.......then he isn't likely to get paid so
much for his lectures.
Hammerstein
Paul J Holden <pa...@nospam.pulpkitchen.idps.co.uk> wrote
> And just adding to the previous comments about the writer and artist
Mike Sivier
>>> I really don't like the idea that the artist is just a tool.
>>
>>Me Neither!
>>I don't think of the artist as a tool, although I admit that the art is a
>>tool - a tool which can convey emotions etc - in the same way that the
>>actors craft is a tool (rather than the actor)
>< cat amongst pigeons >
>Robert McKee maintains that, in film, the writer is the only true creator.
>Everyone else (actors, director, cinematographer, editor) merely *interpret*
>the writer's vision. Could the same be said to be true of comics?
>< /cat amongst pigeons >
Yes it could.
I wouldn't like to say whether it really would be true, though. :)
--
Mike