Ryan Cecil Smith’s week of cartoon diaries continues—today he meets a friend of his girlfriend, and awkward conversation ensues.
And Joe “Jog” McCulloch has the Week in Comics. It looks like a big week, with new (and solid) late Pekar, a long-awaited return from R. Kikuo Johnson, and the final brick in the complete Krazy Kat, a genuinely amazing thing to exist, and almost a reason all by itself to to have irrational hope for humanity’s future. (Does that seem like an overstatement? It obviously is. But read more Krazy Kat and get back to me.) Joe also writes a lot about Garth Ennis, about whose work I remain extremely skeptical.
Chris Mautner attempts to perpetrate a Jeet in this collection of notes on the beginning of a new complete reprint of a canonical strip, Walt Kelly’s Pogo. Like him, I found this first volume to be a strange mix of the brilliant and the off-puttingly whimsical, but I enjoyed it more by the end than the beginning so I’m expecting to get more out of future volumes. In any case, read Mautner.
Eric Stephenson at Image continues to call out DC over their treatment of Alan Moore in the Before Watchmen issue. It is interesting that another publisher is being so aggressive about this, and also heartening in the sense that the more publishers publicly announce high standards, the more likely it is that the readership will hold them all to it. (David Brothers has been writing about Before Watchmen a lot, too.)
The Forbidden Planet blog links to a fascinating series of posts in which the British cartoonist Dan Haycock is working his way through the exercises in Ivan Brunetti’s Cartooning: Philosophy & Practice.
And last but not least, Peter Huestis has posted scans of an entire book by legendary early cartoonist “TAD” Dorgan: Indoor Sports.
Early in the news conference, Mr. Crumb took the lead in questioning, turning to Fabrice Hergott, the museum’s director, to ask how the show came about: “Was there an argument? Was there resistance?”
“It was not so easy,” Mr. Hergott confessed. “The team of curators was not so sure that you were an artist for this museum, that you belonged to the classical world of art.”
Mr. Crumb did not seem distressed. After all, he admitted, he is not a museumgoer. “I went to the Louvre once,” he said. “I don’t really like museums. You get too close to the art, and the guard is going to yell at you.”
Finally, cartoonist and Kramers Ergot editor Sammy Harkham reports in from Sydney, Australia, where he found all of the comic books pictured below in a 50 cent bin at his favorite comic book store. Ah! Life!
Today Tucker Stone is back with another look at the best/worst/most otherwise notable genre comics of (his) reading week, and this time he wonders when superhero comics starting revolving so much around emotional breakdowns?
Off-site you can find:
—A double-dose of Eddie Campbell, both in an interview about his upcoming Lovely Horrible Stuff, and in Bob Heer’s review of the recently released iPad app version of Campbell’s Dapper John.
—A recently discovered 1963 audio interview of the then-88-years-old Jimmy Swinnerton!:
—Joe Sutliff Sanders wondering about the prevalence of lowbrow allusions in comic books.
—Tom Hart, the beloved Hutch Owen cartoonist and SAW co-founder, has revealed that he is the mystery man behind the recent Shit My New Yorker Cartoons Tumblr, and he explains his motivation here.
—Finally, the cartoonist Dustin Harbin has reposted the Doug Wright Awards comic diaries he did for this site last year, along with an enormously long manifesto about the changes he would like to make to the Eisner Awards. If you are the type who likes to argue about award nominating processes, this will provide a motherlode of things to agree and/or argue about.
Today on the site, Rob Clough weighs in on Tom Neely’s self-published art-book/graphic-novel hybrid, The Wolf.
Today off the site, you can read the following:
—For the Financial Times, D’arcy Doran profiles Drawn & Quarterly, with an emphasis on the renaissance it’s gone through over the last four years.
—Chris Arrant catches the very welcome news that industry mainstay Bud Plant is back in business. Readers under thirty or so will never understand what the Bud Plant catalog used to mean.
—Another day, another Dan Clowes interview. Luckily, they’re almost always entertaining, even when they go over familiar ground. This time, Casey Burchby talks with Clowes about his new art book, his first museum exhibition, and current projects.
—Howard Chaykin gave a refreshingly blunt short interview to Comics Anonymous, saying things like the following: “Since [my ’80s/’90s peak] I’ve done nothing that I’m ashamed of. I did plenty of work I’m ashamed of before that but nothing since. I did some shit stuff because I didn’t know what the fuck I was doing. Inadequacy is often its own reward. I did the Star Wars comic in the ’70s and if I’d have know It was going to be as big a hit I would have done a better job.”
—Today is interview day, I guess. Daniel Best has republished a super-entertaining 1975 talk with Jack Kirby. Sample quote: “World War II lent itself to good dramas. The whole thing could have been written by some hack out at Warner Brothers. It was a black and white issue with a villain who was so completely evil that it was just made to order. Anything you did in World War II was an act of nobility. If you hung Hitler or killed hundreds of Germans, you were on the side of the Angels. I once got a letter from a Nazi who told me to pick out any lamppost I wanted on Times Square because, when Hitler arrived, they’d hang me from it. It was typical of a genre of fans who have long since died out.”
—The latest Alan Moore interview for British television that’s been going around is now on YouTube.
One of the last true gag cartoonists standing, Magic Whistle’s Sam Henderson, walks us through his process, which involves a lot more preparation and revisions than many might expect.
And Kent Worcester reviews a cultural history of British comics written by James Chapman. An excerpt:
The best-selling comics magazine Viz, launched in 1979 (and reaching sales of 1.2 million in the 1990s), is very much in the juvenile-yet-class-conscious tradition of The Beano, even if its scatological joke-telling goes way beyond anything that would be allowed in titles published by either D.C. Thomson or the Amalgamated Press, the “big two” oligarchs of British cartooning. The names of Viz’s most popular characters – Johnny Fartpants, Buster Gonad, Billy Bottom, and Sid the Sexist – probably convey better than anything else the magazine’s distinctive brand of humor. In discussing Viz’s meteoric rise, Chapman usefully quotes from George Orwell’s famous essay on seaside postcards: “it will not do to condemn them on the ground that they are vulgar and ugly. That is exactly what they are meant to be. Their whole meaning and virtue is in their unredeemed lowness, not only in the sense of obscenity, but lowness of outlook in every direction whatever.”
Over the barricades—
—Neal Kirby remembers growing up with Jack for the Los Angeles Times:
There were a lot of cigar-chomping characters in Marvel Comics and Dad was one of them — he and other writers and artists popped up in stories in a quirky trademark of the “House of Ideas,” as it was called in the 1960s. Personal parts of his life often crept into his work too. When recounting the creation of the Fantastic Four, for instance, he laughingly confessed that Sue Storm was named for my sister, Susan, and the “Storm” could be considered a bit of personality commentary. When he saw the expression on my face he appropriately apologized for the fact that he never got around to making Neal the name of the Human Torch, an Inhuman or even some low-ranking Skrull.
This is a good one. Don’t miss it if you like Kirby.
—Charles Forsman has created a new website called Muster List, intended as a comprehensive directory for finding mini-comics and sending visitors to the best online sources for purchasing them. (via)
—Illogical Volume at the Mindless Ones takes a thorough look at the reprinting controversy du jour, the recoloring of Flex Mentallo.
—And finally, Daniel Clowes interviewed by Mark Frauenfelder at Meltdown (via everybody):
R.C. Harvey stops by this morning with one of his inimitable forays into comic-strip history. This time, he writes about Ernie Bushmiller’s Nancy, and the semi-secret cult still surrounding it. An excerpt:
Bushmiller worked nights mostly. He began about two o’clock in the afternoon and sat at his drawing board into the wee hours and often into the morning of the next day. “I work on a schedule that produces six daily Nancy and Sluggo strips between Sunday and Tuesday evenings,” he wrote in a autobiographical article in Collier’s (September 18, 1948). “The Sunday page evolves after I’ve taken Wednesday and Thursday off. If this sounds confusing, then you have a fairly accurate picture of a newspaper cartoonist’s life. Unlike other strip cartoonists, I draw the last picture first and work back to toward the beginning, which is exactly the opposite of the way you read it (I hope). I know a guy who draws his cartoons upside down, so I don’t worry much about drawing backwards.”
In conjuring up jokes, Bushmiller came to rely to a great extent upon props, and in so doing, he gave the strip its unique flavor. Describing his method, Bushmiller said: “I jot down items such as toaster, leaky roof, folding chair, mail box, windy day—anything that comes to mind. Looking at the advertising in a magazine also helps, or a Sears Roebuck catalog. When I find an item that seems likely, I start to kick it around in my mind to see if I can work out a funny situation. Let’s say I see an ironing board. I start to think about what can be done with an ironing board, and I pretty soon get an idea.”
Joe McCulloch is around again, too, with his weekly look at the most interesting new comics in stores—plus an online bargain you might be interested to see.
Elsewhere, Journal contributor Nicole Rudick has a review of Kramers Ergot 8 at Hyperallergic.
Darwyn Cooke talked to Rolling Stone about his participation in Before Watchmen, which has predictably led to a lot of online derision. I do think it’s kind of interesting that he shrugs off the immorality of working on this particular title by pointing to the larger ambiguous morality of working on non-creator-owned comic books in general. That’s not the hill I’d choose to die on but he has a point. (Also, it’s funny that he describes himself as being “dragged kicking and screaming” into the project, but then admits that some time after he first declined to participate, he called Dan DiDio up and and said he hoped there was still room for him to join in. A strange form of kicking and screaming, that.)
As you’ve probably read in one of the five hundred comic sites that have run with it so far, artist/conman Thomas Kinkade has passed away, and the animator Ralph Bakshi (who gave Kinkade his start) has released a statement about it. Here’s a brief excerpt:
As far as the art world, the CRITICAL ones shrugging Tom off, as they sell a shark in oil, and polka dots in 12 — count them, 12 — galleries at once in one opening, and all the other mindless hype…
They miss the true brilliance that is Kinkade.
Kinkade painted the brilliant landscapes of the religious right, the Tea Party and all the other Rush Limbaughs in America. He’s selling back what Americans want. This is the most homespun vision of the distorted right and nostalgia-looking Americans reaching for purity without knowing what it really is — all through his landscapes.
IT’S BRILLIANT, and goes by every art critic and major museum in the world. I love it. And it’s just that that [which] I made my movies about — the blind, pretentious and ugly.
Heidi MacDonald called this a “touching tribute,” which isn’t exactly the phrase I’d use… I suppose it is a bit more nuanced than the take on Kinkade Bakshi gave to Vulture in 2008:
He’s a good painter, and he did a spiel. He made all these deals. How he went out and did what he did is beyond my understanding now. He’s very, very talented, and he’s very, very much of a hustler. Those two things are in conflict. Is he talented? Oh yeah. Will he paint anything to make money? Oh yeah. Does he have any sort of moralistic view? No. He doesn’t care about anything. He’s as cheesy as they come.
As longtime readers know, Frank Santoro’s Riff Raff column has taken many forms over the last year (if you started following this site more recently, it’s worth going back to the beginning), and now he continues its latest incarnation: the “New Talent Showcase”. This week, he covers Noel Freibert, Zak Sally, and Olivier Schrauwen.
It is with red and brimming eyes that we must say goodbye to Dylan Horrocks today, who has turned in his fifth Cartoonist’s Diary entry for us.
Tucker Stone seems a little out of sorts himself this morning, though for his own reasons (read: he spends too much time thinking about superhero comics). Experience his crackup in real time in the latest installment of Comics of the Weak.
And Matthew Thurber and Rebecca Bird team up to join our stable of reviewers, with a jointly written appraisal of Bill Griffith’s mammoth retrospective, Lost and Found.
Elsewhere, new dad Dan Nadel has an article on David Shrigley for the Brooklyn Rail.
BK Munn entertainingly argues with the cover feature from the latest issue of Broken Pencil, which itself is an attempted take-down of “high-art” zines from the likes of people like Marc Bell and Amy Lockhart.
Finally, and not really comics, the online reaction (shock, outrage, supreme umbrage) to this fan- and critic-baiting New York Times interview with The Wire creator David Simon reminds me more than a little of whining and hurt feelings that appear whenever Alan Moore gives a cranky interview dismissing dumb comic books. I don’t think I will ever understand why people take these kinds of comments from artists personally. Simon got up peoples’ noses by saying that it is impossible to accurately judge a television show’s success until the whole thing can be seen. This is true. Critics get mad because what are they supposed to do? Wait five years before reviewing a series? What they are supposed to do is not care what David Simon thinks about them. You aren’t writing for the artists, you’re writing for yourself and your readers. And that goes double if you aren’t even a critic. The only reason to care if Alan Moore thinks you’re too dumb to read his comic is if you have a sneaking suspicion he may be right. In which case, go hit the library or take a class or something. Jeez.