bugs bunny giving the finger
kjh;
was a mickey mouse one but I also saw bugs on a t-shirt or something
Dane Martin
>Has anyone seen a design showing bugs bunny giving the finger? I know there
>was a mickey mouse one but I also saw bugs on a t-shirt or something
I haven't seen it, but I'm pretty disgusted by the thought. I wish bootleg
cartoon prints would just die, one of these days.
Thankfully, though, it really didn't seem to sprout insanely until around the
days of "Calvin and Hobbes".
--
Dane
Keeper of Bacon
And Random Things
Found Under The Couch
remove "radical" to contact me
member of the afsh stupid brigade
kjh;
news:20020418160459...@mb-mh.aol.com:
> "kjh;" wrote:
>
>>Has anyone seen a design showing bugs bunny giving the finger? I know
>>there was a mickey mouse one but I also saw bugs on a t-shirt or
>>something
>
> I haven't seen it, but I'm pretty disgusted by the thought. I wish
> bootleg cartoon prints would just die, one of these days.
>
> Thankfully, though, it really didn't seem to sprout insanely until
> around the days of "Calvin and Hobbes".
>
This was old, late 60s early seventies counter-culture type stuff.
Bugs was dressed up like a "hippie" war protester
Dane Martin
Not only is bootleg (obviously) illegal, it's incredibly disturbing. Thena
again, I suppose that's the point...
Did this stuff actually sell?
kjh;
>>>>Has anyone seen a design showing bugs bunny giving the finger?
> I'm pretty disgusted by the thought. I wish
> Not only is bootleg (obviously) illegal, it's incredibly disturbing.
> Thena again, I suppose that's the point...
>
You bunch of anal retentive morons, it was a political criticism/cartoon by
Jules Siegel, I believe.
"Jules Siegel is a scientifically-literate writer, photographer and graphic
designer." or so it says at one site on the web
Jules Siegel
For those who need the truth on this, it was a metaphor in a posting
to Bookarts-L:
----------
From: Jules Siegel <sie...@cafecancun.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 14:03:54 -0500
To: "Book_Arts-L: READ THE FAQ at http://www.philobiblon.com"
<BOOK_...@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Subject: Re: Book Art vs. Book Arts
> It seems to me that the parallel between American support of abstract
> expressionism, and Soviet support of Socialist Realism is highly tendentious,
What do you mean by this? The dictionary definition is "marked by a
tendency in favor of a particular point of view." Which point of view
am I favoring markedly?
> and, indeed, not only not to be taken seriously
Why not?
>--but not intended to be.
I am quite serious about it.
> It should have been obvious, that Jules raised the issue of politics as a red
> herring,
I raised the point to demonstrate that art criticism can be
politically inspired.
Answer these questions: Do you consider yourself to be anti-communist?
Anti-Stalinist? Feel that I'm a pinko? Anti-American? Consider it
trivial that Clement Greene's vicious attacks on certain artists
destroyed their careers and, it is said, caused some to commit
suicide?
As you can see, what I am getting at is that there's a distinct
possibility that your erroneous interpretation of my intent is based
on your own political agenda. So let's get that out in front.
> with the sole intention of minimizing the work of abstract artists (i.e., book
> artists who work in non-traditional forms),
If you actually read my messages, you'll see that despite my personal
preferences for craftsmanship, physical beauty and easily accessible
meaning, I was arguing in favor of broad definitions rather than
narrow ones, even when those broad definitions include works that I
personally find ludicrous.
One reason is that I appreciate the impulse to use art as a form of
ridicule. Luckily, since I'm a writer as well as an artist, I can use
verbal sarcasm instead.
> But, of course, as a critic, what do I know about art?
Humility helps. Glad to see that you recognize your own limits. The
best way to learn more about art would be to create some in a physical
sense. Writing is art, of course, but it's not the same thing as a
painting or an object.
Let's just deal with one factor -- technique. You might begin with
trying to learn a very simple technique, such as imitating a Disney
cartoon. A good place to begin would be one of the Walter Foster
books, which break down the construction of Bugs Bunny (not Disney,
Walter Lantz, but I happen to remember this one very well) into a
peanut for the body, ovals for the head, eyes and ears and so on. If
you follow the instructions you will be able to make a rather decent
Bugs Bunny.
So that's easy. Now let's go to water color. Oops! No erasers. No
concealment of any false move. Just transparent color that goes from
glowing to muddy in a millisecond, with no going back. A sheet of
merely decent water color paper is probably about $10. How many sheets
do you go through before you get one that doesn't have a single muddy
spot? Once you've mastered that, you can try executing your cartoon of
Bugs Bunny in water color.
How about meaning? Well, how about Bugs giving art criticism the
finger?
Your problem here will be to symbolize the concept of art criticism.
This means that you might have to learn how to draw a book (not hard)
and get the title "Art Criticism" on it in the correct perspective (a
little more difficult) and put the book under the arm of someone with,
say, longish hair in a tweedy jacket, possibly bearded (if male), must
have thick glasses, standing at a podium (can be labeled "Academy" or
"Salon de Paris").
This is not so easy. You have to go back to Walter Foster and learn
some of the techniques of representing the human form. This could take
a while.
Even more difficult: your art critic has a scornful expression (that
might take a while to learn how to do) and is pointing to a large
image (can be a slide projected on a screen) of Bugs who is chomping a
fabulous carrot (luminous orange, with brilliant white paper showing
through for the effect of glistening highlights) and giving the art
critic the finger. Maybe he's wearing a beret.
So that's how you begin to create meaning in one very conventional way
-- the newspaper political cartoon, perhaps.
If you are an abstract expressionist, however, you splash paint on
canvas and it expresses your mood.
There's a lot of technique involved here, too, especially if you
choose water color, but also even with easier media such as acrylic.
One major difference, however, is that it's a lot easier to fake being
an abstract expressionist than it is to fake drawing Bugs Bunny.
Moreover -- and this embarrassingly obvious -- the meaning of the
abstract expressionist painting will be a lot less accessible than the
political cartoon of Bugs Bunny giving art criticism the finger.
We will now resort to capital letters: AND THAT'S WHY THE ROCKEFELLERS
LIKED IT A LOT BETTER THAN SOCIALIST REALISM!
--
JULES SIEGEL Apdo 1764 Cancun Q. Roo 77501
http://www.cafecancun.com
kjh;
> Actually I found out what it was, One of the soldiers in "Platoon" or
"Apocalypse Now" had a tattoo of Bugs giving the finger
Was that you Jules??? Wow, I checked you out on the web before the last
post and realised I've read a ton of your stuff over the years, I just
didn't make the connection when it popped up in reference to Bugs
Jules Siegel
> post and realised I've read a ton of your stuff over the years, I just
> didn't make the connection when it popped up in reference to Bugs
Yes, it is the Jules Siegel. Glad you've read my work.
kjh;
news:xFgy8.34652$1u2.1...@news1.calgary.shaw.ca:
> Was that you Jules??? Wow, I checked you out on the web before the last
> post and realised I've read a ton of your stuff over the years, I just
> didn't make the connection when it popped up in reference to Bugs
Jesus! "Stuff" I called his writing "Stuff", what a screw up!