small note about mccloud thread

one point to add:

i only bring up the egyptian/sequential art thing because it brings
into question the rigor of the rest of his thinking. obviously people
can make what they will of the list.

take care,

At 11:50 -0500 2/19/03, t.whid wrote:
>At 11:29 -0500 2/19/03, curt cloninger wrote:
>>Hi t.,
>>
>>We disagree about McCloud. He defines comics (not just american
>>underground comics, but all comics) as sequential art, so how is
>>his discussing sequential pictorial Egyptian narrative totally
>>absurd and irrelevant given his definition? As I continue to
>>explore web art from a narrative angle (as something between film
>>and literature) McCloud's several insights on comics are
>>particularly relevant.
>
>++++
>yo curt,
>
>it's irrelevant in that those who pioneered newspaper comics in
>america in the early part of the 20th weren't taking any cues from
>Egyptian art; they weren't thinking about Egyptian art. they were
>being directly influenced by political cartoons from 1800s in both
>America and Europe (Nash, Daumier, etc) (btw Marcel Duchamp's bro
>was a cartoonist for newspapers, it was considered very uncool so he
>changed his name to Jacques Villon ).
>
>to say simply that it's a sequential pictorial narrative therefor
>draw some relation is absurd. film (which fits the def as well) is
>also directly related to Egyptian art? Early comics creators weren't
>directly influenced by any art historical form of sequential art.
>the only connection is a general art historical connection but then
>you can say everyone from Titian to Matt Barney have connections to
>Egyptian art.
>
>it's just a rather obvious play to attempt to give contemporary
>comics some sort of art historical or cultural cache that they don't
>need. they live and breathe on their own. so perhaps it isn't an
>absurd idea, simply an irrelevant observation.
>
>
>>
>>Anyway, to prima facie dismiss an argument as unincisive is not
>>really dialogue. your critique is unincisive.
>>
>
>+++
>that's true, it's not very incisive. people can look at the list and
>make their own opinion. perhaps later i'll back up my comment, no
>time now.
>
>take care,
>
>>i remain,
>>curt
>>
>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>t. wrote:
>>
>>you're talking about Scott McCloud the comix guy?
>>
>>he's an idiot. well, let me back up. he's not an idiot, but i
>>wouldn't take any art lessons from him. in 'understanding comix' he
>>attempts to make a connection from american underground comix to
>>egyptian art (they are both sequential static images creating a
>>narrative is his reasoning) which is totally absurd and irrelevant.
>>
>>his artistic process above doesn't seem any more incisive. he
>>reminds me of pop psychology (the dr. phil brand) but he's making
>>poor arguments in art criticism and art history.
>>+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>>-> post: [email protected]
>>-> questions: [email protected]
>>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>>+
>>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>–
><twhid>
>http://www.mteww.com
></twhid>
>+ ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
>-> post: [email protected]
>-> questions: [email protected]
>-> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
>-> give: http://rhizome.org/support
>+
>Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
>Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>