more mccloud, last one promise

Hi t.whid,

> It's not a serious book (it's analogous to a pop psych book) and to
> quote it when making args about art doesn't serve you well curt. I
> think you have much better ideas and args than McCloud.

Why can't Curt use references from elsewhere if he wants to? I see this as a
very positive thing to do. It takes the power away from the usual critics,
and references that are so 'rank pulling' intellectually. It breaks down
barriers, and opens up other ways for people to understand art things.
Soundz kool to me, or is it a keep in the family situation going on here?

marc




> At 12:42 -0500 2/19/03, curt cloninger wrote:
> >t.,
> >
> >you're missing McCloud's argument and the point of the book.
> >"understanding comics" isn't an art history chronicle. it's a
> >series of ruminations on the language of a particular medium. he's
> >not suggesting that 20th century comic artists were directly
> >influenced by egyptian art. he's suggesting that there's something
> >intrinsic to the human condition that makes us want to tell stories
> >sequentially with pictures, and he's analyzing the ways we have done
> >so throughout history in order to arrive at some fundamental
> >conclusions about images, icons, words, and communication itself.
>
>
> +++
> yo,
>
> It's been a long time since I've read it but I'll concede that he
> doesn't attempt to draw direct connections btw contemporary comix and
> egyptian art.
>
> If memory serves correctly he calls Egyptian art comics however
> (along with cave paintings). If he does do this it is a good
> illustration of his intellectual paucity. There is no defensible
> reason to tack on contemporary names to historical movements or
> thinking. I'v made that point before on this list so I won't go
> through it again. (Rembrandt != expressionist)
>
> There's nothing illuminating in describing people using images to
> tell stories throughout history. A fairly obvious observation imo. To
> tack on the sequential thing because it happens to be his own medium
> is simply self-serving.
>
> It's not a serious book (it's analogous to a pop psych book) and to
> quote it when making args about art doesn't serve you well curt. I
> think you have much better ideas and args than McCloud.
>
> take care,
>
>
> >
> >He brings up the Egyptians to point out that this form of iconic
> >storytelling is not so tangential to human culture as we might
> >suppose. He later uses these Egyptian narratives to exemplify a
> >time when images and words were not so segregated and specialized as
> >they were at the end of the 19th century.
> >
> >Likewise, with the 6 creative phases, he's not talking about
> >historical art movements, he's talking about the intrinsic human
> >creative process. Maybe there's no such thing as an intrinsic human
> >creative process, and maybe art means nothing outside of its given
> >socio-historical contexts – but those assertions were still open to
> >some debate last time I checked.
> >
> >peace,
> >curt
> >
> >
> >++++
> >t. wrote:
> >
> >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.
> >
> >+ 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
>

hi t.,

To me it seems you're oversimplifying McCloud's arguments, and then
accusing them of being facile. He's saying more than what you say
he's saying.

Whether McCloud is played or chic or pop or serious is irrelevant to
me. I'm fairly pop myself.

Honestly, McCloud is just a point of departure. I used his model as
a springboard to make the following indictment: In the net art scene,
there's a glut of genre-exploring for genre-exploring's sake, and a
dearth of art which uses the genre to say something topical that's
not explicitly about the genre.

peace,
curt



At 1:50 PM -0500 2/19/03, t.whid wrote:
>+++
>yo,
>
>It's been a long time since I've read it but I'll concede that he
>doesn't attempt to draw direct connections btw contemporary comix
>and egyptian art.
>
>If memory serves correctly he calls Egyptian art comics however
>(along with cave paintings). If he does do this it is a good
>illustration of his intellectual paucity. There is no defensible
>reason to tack on contemporary names to historical movements or
>thinking. I'v made that point before on this list so I won't go
>through it again. (Rembrandt != expressionist)
>
>There's nothing illuminating in describing people using images to
>tell stories throughout history. A fairly obvious observation imo.
>To tack on the sequential thing because it happens to be his own
>medium is simply self-serving.
>
>It's not a serious book (it's analogous to a pop psych book) and to
>quote it when making args about art doesn't serve you well curt. I
>think you have much better ideas and args than McCloud.
>
>take care,
>
>
>>
>>He brings up the Egyptians to point out that this form of iconic
>>storytelling is not so tangential to human culture as we might
>>suppose. He later uses these Egyptian narratives to exemplify a
>>time when images and words were not so segregated and specialized
>>as they were at the end of the 19th century.
>>
>>Likewise, with the 6 creative phases, he's not talking about
>>historical art movements, he's talking about the intrinsic human
>>creative process. Maybe there's no such thing as an intrinsic
>>human creative process, and maybe art means nothing outside of its
>>given socio-historical contexts – but those assertions were still
>>open to some debate last time I checked.
>>
>>peace,
>>curt
>>
>>
>>++++
>>t. wrote:
>>
>>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.
>>
>>+ 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>