Comic Books?

Yeah. You read right. This is for everything that doesn't have anything to do with Eva.

Moderators: Rebuild/OT Moderators, Board Staff

StarShaper7
Arael
Arael
User avatar
Posts: 859
Joined: Mar 28, 2014

Postby StarShaper7 » Wed Oct 07, 2015 4:42 pm

^ You've completely missed my point.

If you think every artist should stick to "basic anatomy," then you're putting an unreasonable restriction on the artist. Why are you giving an artist such narrow, specific rules through which he must adulterate his expression? Why does he HAVE to draw reality as it is? He doesn't. All you're really saying is that he doesn't draw the way you want him to. And this isn't a case where every woman in a comic is drawn to look like a pornstar. This is a case of an artist using the visuals to complement the story, which is what comics are all about. There is an artistic intent behind it.

I mean, do you get pissed off at some anime/manga that have women with 80-pound bodies and eyes the size of their wrists? Or at the exaggerated proportions of most cartoons airing on American television?

Most people just don't know what ART really is.

Ray
Elder God
Elder God
User avatar
Age: 27
Posts: 6714
Joined: Feb 10, 2014
Location: USA
Gender: Male

Postby Ray » Wed Oct 07, 2015 5:25 pm

View Original PostStarShaper7 wrote:If you think every artist should stick to "basic anatomy," then you're putting an unreasonable restriction on the artist.


Why are you giving an artist such narrow, specific rules through which he must adulterate his expression? Why does he HAVE to draw reality as it is? He doesn't. All you're really saying is that he doesn't draw the way you want him to. And this isn't a case where every woman in a comic is drawn to look like a pornstar.


there's a difference between doing bad anatomy for the sake of style and just being lazy.

Good Exagerration of Human Anatomy Humberto Ramos

SPOILER: Show
Image

Image

Here the cartoony exaggeration is consistent throughout.




BAD Exagerration of Human anatomy: Rob Liefield
SPOILER: Show
Image

Image


Here, the exaggeration is applied without rhyme or reason. Cap has a barrel chest in one work, and a normal chest in another.



and the thing is, Miller CAN draw decent anatomy and human bodies. Or at least could before syphilis and bigotry ate away at his brain until there was nothing decent left. look up his work for the first few volumes of Sin City, Ronin, and the original Dark Knight returns.

Some boobs  SPOILER: Show

Image
Image
Image

Image

This is a case of an artist using the visuals to complement the story
.

Given the stories Millers been telling lately. Hate-filled, ultraviolent, incoherent, barely comprehensible, psuedo Fascist, nihilistic schlock. I guess your right, the art DOES match the story he's trying to tell.

I mean, do you get pissed off at some anime/manga that have women with 80-pound bodies and eyes the size of their wrists? Or at the exaggerated proportions of most cartoons airing on American television?


Those guys exaggerate the human figure with a purpose. Modern Day Miller uses 'exagerration' as an excuse to be lazy. His recent work on Holy Terror (AKA because TERRORISM!) can attest to that.

Holy Terror Is An Unholy Piece Of Godawful Shi-  SPOILER: Show
Image

Image

Image


It looks like something a TEN YEAR OLD would draw.

He used exaggeration of human anatomy to great effect in some of his work on Sin City. But again, there the exaggeration fit the tone of the story and was CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT.

Or in simple terms:

FRANK MILLER DRAWS WITH ONE HAND
People say "be yourself" but that's bad advice, if we were all to "be ourselves" many of us would stop wearing clothes. -Chuckman

Nuclear Lunchbox
Agent Ahegao
Agent Ahegao
User avatar
Age: 23
Posts: 10212
Joined: Dec 13, 2012
Location: 可塑の椅子

Postby Nuclear Lunchbox » Wed Oct 07, 2015 5:47 pm

I'm not sure what you're all on about. The cover looks fine to me. (Also, art is subjective-- why do I have to say this on an Evangelion forum, of all places? :tongue: )

unz
Israfel
Israfel
Posts: 458
Joined: Aug 31, 2015
Location: Italy
Gender: Male

Postby unz » Wed Oct 07, 2015 6:20 pm

People need an injection of, say, daisuke igarashi or something.

StarShaper7
Arael
Arael
User avatar
Posts: 859
Joined: Mar 28, 2014

Postby StarShaper7 » Wed Oct 07, 2015 6:56 pm

Rob Liefeld exaggerates the human body as sex objects. The men all look like roided-out bodybuilders and the women fit the image of a stereotypical pornstar. It's all commercial, there's no soul beneath the surface. And on the other hand, Miller's artwork bleeds FRANK MILLER. It's overflowing with spirit.

Well, maybe someone might say that Liefeld's going even further with what his comics predecessors did and amplifying the sexual appeal hundredfold, but to what end? I haven't read much Liefeld, so I wouldn't know if he has any artistic intent behind it, but I doubt he does. It probably is just for the sales. Still, I don't resent the guy.

and the thing is, Miller CAN draw decent anatomy and human bodies. Or at least could before syphilis and bigotry ate away at his brain until there was nothing decent left. look up his work for the first few volumes of Sin City, Ronin, and the original Dark Knight returns.


Yes, I mentioned that he could draw like that. And now you're doing the popular thing and demonizing Miller. I mean, you're doing to him what you perceive him to be doing to Muslims. Demonization. You don't see the hypocrisy of that? You literally think he has no decency left in him. Isn't that what you think Miller is saying about Muslims?

Those guys exaggerate the human figure with a purpose. Modern Day Miller uses 'exagerration' as an excuse to be lazy. His recent work on Holy Terror (AKA because TERRORISM!) can attest to that.


Miller has as much intent behind his style as anyone else (that's what I was saying, in case you missed the point). And it's not laziness. Greg Land is lazy. Not Frank Miller.

Those panels of HT you placed in your post actually demonstrate the skill of Miller's work. He is AWARE of the black-and-white view he holds, hence the color choice. It was a conscious decision. He knows just how far from objectivity he is, but he doesn't care because 3000 lives were snuffed out on 9/11. Even more were lost in the Middle East. And Miller can only express how much rage and hatred he holds for the people responsible through his words and art. That's why it's so messy and raw. He has no pretension of holding an "objective" view of the world, because the world he sees is in chaos. It's faaar from nihilistic. It's not very nice, sure, but certainly not nihilistic.

You say his recent works are "incoherent" and "barely comprehensible" (at the same time, no less). I assume this applies to Holy Terror. I didn't really have any trouble in that respect, it's actually quite straightforward. He isn't just writing a vengeful fantasy against terrorists. He's also criticizing America's reaction to terrorism and the war. Miller's recent work has all been about returning to the Golden Age when superheroes were unpolished and raw. That's the kind of justice he's looking for. Sure, I don't agree with what he's saying. But I won't dismiss him as a degenerate bigot like so many people have.

He used exaggeration of human anatomy to great effect in some of his work on Sin City. But again, there the exaggeration fit the tone of the story and was CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT.


The exaggeration here also fits the tone of the story. And consistency in model is also a restriction that an artist shouldn't necessarily have to adhere to. Miller isn't about consistency, he's about expressiveness. He draws what he feels appropriately conveys the emotion of a particular scene.
Last edited by StarShaper7 on Wed Oct 07, 2015 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ray
Elder God
Elder God
User avatar
Age: 27
Posts: 6714
Joined: Feb 10, 2014
Location: USA
Gender: Male

Postby Ray » Wed Oct 07, 2015 6:56 pm

I loved Frank Miller growing up. He was my Idol. He's one of the reasons I wanted to try and be an artist.

Today. seeing the way he is now. . . I feel like Geena Davis watching Jeff Goldblum turn into the Fly.
Last edited by Ray on Wed Oct 07, 2015 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
People say "be yourself" but that's bad advice, if we were all to "be ourselves" many of us would stop wearing clothes. -Chuckman

Chuckman
Chuckman
Chuckman
User avatar
Age: 37
Posts: 8902
Joined: Nov 11, 2011
Location: Chuckman
Gender: Female

Postby Chuckman » Wed Oct 07, 2015 7:35 pm

He really, really can't handle living in New York. If you look at his oevre, it's pretty mucha chronicle of how he hates the city more and more until 9/11 hits and breaks him completely.

StarShaper7
Arael
Arael
User avatar
Posts: 859
Joined: Mar 28, 2014

Postby StarShaper7 » Wed Oct 07, 2015 9:09 pm

(Also, art is subjective-- why do I have to say this on an Evangelion forum, of all places?)


This is true, but that's not really what I was on about. It's not just a matter of "I don't like this because of my personal preference," which is fine, to each their own, but the real issue I have is with people dismissing the artistic skill of, and outright demonizing, Frank Miller. It's just unreasonable.

On a different note:

Here's Brian Wood clarifying what he meant on his newsletter that was mentioned on that Mary Sue article, followed by the original letter (although one paragraph was redacted).

He wasn't really being the predator-protecting asshole that the Mary Sue article kind of made him out to be. He seems pretty reasonable to me.

Gob Hobblin
First Ancestor
First Ancestor
User avatar
Age: 37
Posts: 4229
Joined: Jan 12, 2013
Location: Behind the Door of Kukundu
Gender: Male
Contact:

Postby Gob Hobblin » Wed Oct 07, 2015 9:52 pm

Frank Miller has done a very good job of demonizing Frank Miller himself: pretty much every criticism that comes his way tends to be very well earned.

In terms of art, however, this cover just blows, because Miller has demonstrated he is capable of better. If he's trying to go for some sort of evocative or stylistic choice here, I don't know what it is. This picture, to me, has nothing wrong with Frank Miller as a person (that's sufficient in his choice of the title). This picture is wrong because it's clear he simply didn't put any effort into it. It LOOKS sloppy, and it looks like bad art. It looks like Miller just phoned it in, drew something, said, "Eh, looks all right," and submitted it (knowing it would be picked up, because, hey: he's Frank fucking Miller! Who's gonna say no?).

Everything about it looks off-center, ugly, and just plain flawed. I mean, the imagery from Holy Terror? Much as I have gripes with that book, you're right. That was good art. It was visually striking, and the off-kiltered look presented an imagery of sickness. I got that. This, though? It just looks bad.

I feel like he's gotten lazier and lazier with his work, because he's riding his success from Sin City and The Dark Knight Returns.
Though, Gob still might look good in a cocktail dress.
-Sorrow

Rei wanted to know what waffles tasted like.
-Literary Eagle

We have to remember what's important in life: friends, waffles, and work. Or waffles, friends, and work. But work has to come in third.
-Leslie Knope

Come read EVA Sessions! This place has it, too! There'll be pizza! Not really! There are other things, too! Not EVA Sessions! Did I mention the pizza!?

Nuclear Lunchbox
Agent Ahegao
Agent Ahegao
User avatar
Age: 23
Posts: 10212
Joined: Dec 13, 2012
Location: 可塑の椅子

Postby Nuclear Lunchbox » Wed Oct 07, 2015 10:25 pm

Every week, I pore over Doujinshi edit jobs for the quality control phase of the scanlation group I work in. I rarely see the same artist more than once a month, and I get the opportunity to view any and all kinds of artwork. Artistic style is a wonderful and varied thing, and I almost often find differing opinions on what looks good or bad. A wonderfully talented artist might create a book over the course of six months that our lead editor thinks looks like crap. An amateur might pop out of the woodwork with something that the very same editor thinks looks wonderfully polished, but that only took the artist a few weeks to complete.

I've had the opportunity to walk and talk with editors who work with authors who publish their works in serial monthly magazines, who mention the amount of work artists put into what they create and the hours that they keep. I've talked with artists who produce prints that they sell online or at conventions to earn a living. Every artist will have a different amount of time they work for and with a different style, sometimes even between projects.

There is not "bad art". To slightly echo Starshaper, there is "art that I don't like".

StarShaper7
Arael
Arael
User avatar
Posts: 859
Joined: Mar 28, 2014

Postby StarShaper7 » Wed Oct 07, 2015 10:40 pm

Yes, he really has made himself an easy target, but a lot of the mockery he gets on the internet is just childish.

I don't take issue with his choice of title (at least not yet). Picking "The Master Race" doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be a full-on celebration of fascism or anything like that. I'll have to wait and reserve judgement. But whatever the story ends up being, it definitely won't be pretty.

Personally, I don't think the cover is his best work either. But it succeeds at what it was intended to do. It's meant to be sloppy and chaotic, as Miller's Superman is supposed to be counter to the typical depiction of Superman as a sleek, perfect and orderly figure. Everything about the image reflects this precisely. He's asymmetric, ugly, exaggeratedly masculine in a brutish sense. The expression on his face and his giant, shaking fists make it clear that he's angry about something. That's the Superman we'll be seeing in DK3. I think that's really all it was meant to do. But Kurt Busiek has already said all that. My primary criticism would be with the Atom. Is he falling? Did Superman hit him and that's what those white lines are supposed to indicate? What's going on with that guy? It doesn't really convey the movement properly.

And here's another variant cover he did:
SPOILER: Show
Image

Again, not his best work. Batman's left leg looks like it's literally growing out of his fist or something. But apart from that, I like this piece. The bloody red splattered across the background and giant fists and the menacing posture fits the relentless, brutal nature of his Batman.

Gob Hobblin
First Ancestor
First Ancestor
User avatar
Age: 37
Posts: 4229
Joined: Jan 12, 2013
Location: Behind the Door of Kukundu
Gender: Male
Contact:

Postby Gob Hobblin » Wed Oct 07, 2015 11:31 pm

I have a hunch what he's referring to, because while I doubt he has a massive Hitler shrine in his living room, he's made it clear that he thinks of people in terms of superior and inferior. That is a running theme in his comic series, and something he tends to touch on with super-hero comics. There's this idea in his world that super-heroes are victims of inferior people who resent them for their superiority, or in the very least are big frigging anchors around their necks (or, in the case of Batman...everything that breathes).

I have no issue with the Atom, because he's barely there. He's such a small part of the whole thing, I can't think up a criticism for him because he's a non-factor in the art, almost. He's just kind of hanging out next to Super Grodd.

As for whether there's good art and bad art, there is good art...and there is bad art. There is art that is objectively of inferior quality compared to art of superior quality. There are standards and measures in place for determining which is which, from style to palette to tone to perspective to a wide variety of other things, up to and including the breadth of the artist's previous work. This is just an ugly piece of art: it's garish, the perspective is ungainly and flawed, the proportions ridiculous, the subject surreal...there's no indication if any of it was deliberate to say something about the character or story, and that's a level of subtlety I just don't give Frank Miller. Miller isn't subtle. He's never been subtle about anything he says or does.

As for the wider breadth of whether there is such a thing as good-art vs. art-I-don't-like, that's given as an excuse to pass off a whole lot of crap as art. It's like the guy who photographs crucifixes in his own piss, or the woman who did performance art in a public place by squirting paint out of her vagina on a canvas. You can call it art, because it riles people up or gets some sort of response, but usually when people do that sort of thing and NOT call it art, it's called mental illness.

The point being that simply saying that there is no such thing as bad art gives a wide pass on things that really should get called out for being bad. You call things bad because that sets boundaries, and setting boundaries is what spurs creativity. It focuses talent and drives people far more than having some sort of wide-ranging field where anything and everything goes. That's just chaos.

Is that subjective? Of course it is. That subjectivity, however, exists within a social framework that is built up from expectation, observation, and experience. If you say nothing can be judged in terms of good versus bad, than there is simply to strive for, and becomes a false argument in and of itself: if a piece of art is something that is liked by many people, is it not, therefore, a good piece of art? If many people are appalled by it, is it just not liked by many people...or maybe a bad piece of art?

In which case, you're just getting into a language game. So, in other words, to make things simpler overall: a crappy drawing of Superman by an artist who is capable of better is a crappy drawing. Factor in that this is an artist who has a very high opinion of himself and a burning desire to tell everyone about how the world REALLY is, and you have even more reasons for possibly seeing why he threw this out for everyone to see.
Though, Gob still might look good in a cocktail dress.
-Sorrow

Rei wanted to know what waffles tasted like.
-Literary Eagle

We have to remember what's important in life: friends, waffles, and work. Or waffles, friends, and work. But work has to come in third.
-Leslie Knope

Come read EVA Sessions! This place has it, too! There'll be pizza! Not really! There are other things, too! Not EVA Sessions! Did I mention the pizza!?

Chuckman
Chuckman
Chuckman
User avatar
Age: 37
Posts: 8902
Joined: Nov 11, 2011
Location: Chuckman
Gender: Female

Postby Chuckman » Thu Oct 08, 2015 12:00 am

He sees Superman as Nietzsche's Last Man and Batman as the Beyond-Man, but with a childish, high schooler's understanding of Nietzsche that posits that abandoning the morality of the slave means kicking everyone's ass because you can and standing above and leading the herd means a dictatorship of a warlord.

The fascist undertones in his work are increasingly powerful, but his most coherent pro-fascist work is of course TDKR.

The point of the book is, simply, this: The conservatism of Reagan-era Republicans has grown corrupt and effete and no longer acts as a reactionary force to the increasing power of the feminine Other in society. Miller's Batman is a remnant of a vanished world where men were men and men kept all those undesirables in line. That's why he turns Catwoman into a whore and dresses her up as Wonder Woman; the implicit message is that men must keep women in line or they will become sexually wanton and degenerate.

Notice that he identifies Catwoman's whoredom with Wonder Woman, whose weakness is bondage. Transformation into Wonder Woman would be empowering but the book recasts it as corrupting. The unrestrained woman is childlike, defiant until she's broken by her own uncontrollable, corrupting lust and demands a (Bat)man's discipline.

The centerpiece of this of course is the Joker, a weirdly feminine incarnation with kissable lips, who is contrasted against Bruno, a hypermasculine she-beast that expresses male sexuality with alarming upper body nudity we normally identify with men. (Bruno's costume, sans Swasitka pasties, wouldn't raise an eyebrow on a male enemy). Again, the curious sexual imagery reveals a fascist narrative: By taking on the solar rape-force of the Nazi Swastika, Bruno symbolically destroys her femininity by obscuring her nipples, source of the nourishment of children.

Of course, Batman defeats Miller's glam rock Joker by penetrating him with a Batarang, of course, after a phallic fuckfest-slash-knife fight that centers on Batman overcoming being symbolically raped by the Joker (who first goes on a spree through a Love Tunnel, murdering young heterosexual couples) and overcoming his queerness with sheer masculinity; so powerful is Batman's cock that the Joker dies by becoming so twisted he can no longer live.

In the final act, Miller casts Superman as the embodiment of American social progress. Hence Superman in his traditional American Flag poses. Not the sexually charged page with the Eagle where Miller lovingly drools over Superman's manly chest and aggressive physique, yet Superman is dominated by the old effete 'conservative' establishment that is a pale shadow of Batman's fascist ur-masculinity. The central conceit is that Truth, Justice, and the American Way has been corrupted by the Other exploiting it to contain and bind the masculine force.

Then you get Ollie becoming a penis in the form of a one-armed archer hurling Kryptonite sperm at Supes before Batman, wearing American mechanical fetishism as a weaponized suit, beats the shit out of him and establishes that the triumphant Will is more powerful than otherworldly might.

In the end it's established that Pure Fascism is an older, closer to the Earth, pagan form of masculinity that's superior to social progress and compromise with liberals as Batman retreats underground to establish a form of Right that is free from the constraints of Justice.

The whole thing is a long, rambling screed against things like due process, femininity, compassion, trust, etc. Batman isn't the hero because he's good, he's the hero because he has a vision and he's abandoned the constraints that define Batman as a good guy vigilante. Even though Miller wusses out and absolves Batman of guilt in the death of the Joker, the emotional climax of the book is the death of Batman's honor code, followed by his beating the shit out of the embodiment of hope and compassion.

Addendum: Miller is so afraid of gays that he turned Robin into a girl (and the fandom/establishment bought it; we've all heard jokes about Bruce and Dick, when was the last time you heard someone quip about Bruce fucking Carrie Kelly?) and turned around and use the Joker-symbolism to paint Dick as a gay and destroy him in the sequel.

pwhodges
A Lilin in Wonderland
A Lilin in Wonderland
User avatar
Age: 74
Posts: 10732
Joined: Nov 18, 2012
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Postby pwhodges » Thu Oct 08, 2015 1:37 am

View Original PostGob Hobblin wrote:You can call it art, because it riles people up or gets some sort of response, but usually when people do that sort of thing and NOT call it art, it's called mental illness.

Beethoven's contemporaries dismissed his late quartets as the outpourings of madness as well.

That subjectivity, however, exists within a social framework that is built up from expectation, observation, and experience.

Exactly - fit within the current social framework, and you can have the "art" label. But really, there's no more indisputable absolute standard for art than there is for morals.
"Being human, having your health; that's what's important." (from: Magical Shopping Arcade Abenobashi )
"As long as we're all living, and as long as we're all having fun, that should do it, right?" (from: The Eccentric Family )
Avatar: The end of the journey (details); Past avatars.
Before 3.0+1.0 there was Afterwards... my post-Q Evangelion fanfic (discussion)

Rosenakahara
Evangelion
Evangelion
User avatar
Age: 23
Posts: 3319
Joined: May 20, 2014
Gender: Female

Postby Rosenakahara » Thu Oct 08, 2015 1:43 am

[url]http://comicbook.com/2015/07/10/cassandra-cain-returns-in-batman-and-robin-eternal-at-comic-con/[/url]
I SHOULD be happy about this, I mean Cass literally topped my list for several years as my favourite superhero/heroine ever and I was so dissapointed when she was just erased from canon completely and they decided that babs so get character regression and be batgirl again but...

I don't follow the new 52 any-more and even if it stops calling itself that it will always be that to me because its the event that killed my interest in DC comics. (Marvel isn't doing much better what with trying to do a civil war 2 and all but at least spider-gwen wont be affected there)
Even then If I DID give a shit about the new 52 I highly doubt that Cass will be getting her own books again and im just worried they will screw her up yet again because they have a bad track record with that.
"She had better march back here and try again! I only send people off on my terms! ...Or in a casket."
I don't need a scabbard to sheathe my mind
What is going on is a concerted effort from anti-progressives to silence anyone who disagrees with them.-Bagheera 2016
The Twelve Kingdoms discussion thread

Mr. Tines
Administrator
Administrator
User avatar
Age: 63
Posts: 20724
Joined: Nov 23, 2004
Location: This sceptered isle.
Gender: Male
Contact:

Postby Mr. Tines » Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:02 am

On the Frank Miller thing -- it looks like he's achieved self-parody now.

View Original PostRosenakahara wrote:I don't follow the new 52 any-more and even if it stops calling itself that it will always be that to me because its the event that killed my interest in DC comics.
One reboot too many -- that seems to be the way of things, given that capes have gotten themselves into a state where they have to maintain a nigh-static status quo and yet have things happen, when by rights the original characters should (immortals aside) all have been enjoying a well-deserved retirement long ago (Peter Parker should be about 70, and he was one of the young ones from the Silver Age -- Bruce Wayne should be close to his century).
Reminder: Play nicely <<>> My vanity publishing:- NGE|blog|Photos|retro-blog|Fanfics|🕊|🐸|MAL
Avatar: Ritsu-nyan

Rosenakahara
Evangelion
Evangelion
User avatar
Age: 23
Posts: 3319
Joined: May 20, 2014
Gender: Female

Postby Rosenakahara » Thu Oct 08, 2015 2:13 am

As long as Dan DiDio stays far away from this her character shouldn't be TOO radically different, though for some reason her disability in regards to proper complicated speech probably wont be in there because why should our characters be unique?
Oh and thats a nice lin bei fong costume but wheres her real one?:
SPOILER: Show
Image
"She had better march back here and try again! I only send people off on my terms! ...Or in a casket."
I don't need a scabbard to sheathe my mind
What is going on is a concerted effort from anti-progressives to silence anyone who disagrees with them.-Bagheera 2016
The Twelve Kingdoms discussion thread

StarShaper7
Arael
Arael
User avatar
Posts: 859
Joined: Mar 28, 2014

Postby StarShaper7 » Fri Oct 09, 2015 1:02 am

View Original PostGob Hobblin wrote:Is that subjective? Of course it is. That subjectivity, however, exists within a social framework that is built up from expectation, observation, and experience. If you say nothing can be judged in terms of good versus bad, than there is simply to strive for, and becomes a false argument in and of itself: if a piece of art is something that is liked by many people, is it not, therefore, a good piece of art? If many people are appalled by it, is it just not liked by many people...or maybe a bad piece of art?


If something's hated by many people, that doesn't really negate the positive emotions and opinions other people have regarding it and vice versa. Of course, it's also needlessly reductionist to classify art in terms of just "good" or "bad," since most works of art don't fit comfortably within boxes. Perhaps most people will apply this compartmentalization but not true for everyone.

It seems to me like you're trying to elevate the subjectivity shared by the majority to an objectivity. That's how you view art, and that's completely valid. But other people feel differently because art affects people in different ways and relates to them beyond its quantifiable (measurable) qualities. All of that is important, of course, but it is hardly a determinant that necessitates strict adherence to. Whether or not something is called bad or good, people will find something that speaks to them and sometimes emulate and even build on it. Creativity is inevitable and doesn't need to be directed by what the many think is "good."

As for the wider breadth of whether there is such a thing as good-art vs. art-I-don't-like, that's given as an excuse to pass off a whole lot of crap as art. It's like the guy who photographs crucifixes in his own piss, or the woman who did performance art in a public place by squirting paint out of her vagina on a canvas. You can call it art, because it riles people up or gets some sort of response, but usually when people do that sort of thing and NOT call it art, it's called mental illness.


The crucifix-in-piss was an image of the status of the religious symbol among its adherents. The values and morality that it represents aren't followed by many of those who claim to be its believers. The organization that is supposed to represent the divinity is known to bear corruption. Of course, none of that means anything if you find anyone placing the symbol in his urine to be an offense or find any other sort of issue with it. In one person's view, that would make it "bad art." But that's also not an issue that other people will have.

And when something is called art, it's not like the presented object is being placed upon a pedestal. Anything can be passed off as art, so art itself isn't some kind of indicator of an object's value. It merely indicates that it evokes such a response from some people. There is no such thing as absolute value. The objects within the realm of matter only hold the value that human minds impose upon them. And the value a particular object holds always differs from one individual to the next.

Most people who enter an art gallery and look at a piece that seems to be random splashes of colors and pointless lines will walk away without having gained anything from it. Maybe some will have thought that it looked "ugly" or "pretty." But the creator will have spent years amassing knowledge of art technique and history and gaining influences from his predecessors. The resulting work will be in response to this information and the emotions associated with it. Only people looking at it from a similar perspective would appreciate the work on this level. And even within these people there will be those who think that it's "bad."

I don't care whether Frank Miller intended it or not (though I think he did); this cover is an image that tells us what we need to know about the Superman that will appear in this story. I've already said why I think so. There's not much subtlety in an artist drawing an iconic character in a subversive way. It's especially easy to believe that this was intended if you've read DK2. It ends with Superman fed up with humanity and taking the Earth under his control. Gone are the morals and values of the boy who grew up in Smallville. Now he's the conqueror who will direct humanity on the path he chooses. It's fascist. It's a completely twisted take on the character, hence the completely twisted (on multiple levels) image. Of course most people would react to it with disgust. Miller can draw better but he didn't, and with purpose. Your view of art may lead you to dismiss it, but mine doesn't.

My own subjectivity leads me to this conclusion. So obviously everyone won't end up with the same view. We're all coming from different places and looking at it from different perspectives. And that's completely fine. That's just how it always will be.

TL;DR: Let's agree to disagree.

Chuckman
Chuckman
Chuckman
User avatar
Age: 37
Posts: 8902
Joined: Nov 11, 2011
Location: Chuckman
Gender: Female

Postby Chuckman » Fri Oct 09, 2015 1:09 am

That's why he's hard, Miller has through years of searching found the Superman he would be glad to bottom for.

StarShaper7
Arael
Arael
User avatar
Posts: 859
Joined: Mar 28, 2014

Postby StarShaper7 » Fri Oct 09, 2015 1:49 am

I think this whole trilogy will end with one big gay orgy. Batman and Superman will be at the heart of it.

Anything else just wouldn't make sense.


Return to “Completely and Utterly Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest