Painting 2 Post 9

Now that the elephants are out of the room, let's talk about Grant Morrison.

Morrison is responsible for a huge number of comic works both independent and of "the big two" (Marvel/DC) and I'm currently reading his book Supergods, which dissects the role superhero storytelling has played in the world.

Morrison, after the behemoth success of Allan Moore's Watchmen, arguably the best "what if superheroes were real" story ever told, tackled the comic Animal Man from the same direction, except opposite. Instead of humanizing (ie making gritty like Moore and most 80's/90's comics authors) Morrison inserted himself into the comic and made Animal Man aware of a three dimensional world he could not perceive, but that could perceive him.

In the comic, Morrison explains to Animal Man the nature of comics, how death in his world is entertainment to ours. That violence makes things "adult" and "hip." That everything Animal Man ever did was not of his own volition, but instead for the sheer enjoyment of superior beings.

I think I ride the line between Moore and Morrison with my painted strips. My characters are clearly puppets, enacting expected trope-laden sequences, but simultaneously professing what (at least in my belief) is a more direct version of the implicit narrative, with an eye on the writer more than the character.

This particular painting will have a sexism joke. Sexism isn't funny to Dawson Dawg because Dawson Dawg doesn't exist. Sexism is funny to readers. Now, if I asked Dawson his opinion in the comic, he might rally against sexism because he is inherently good and caring and I believe those traits are closer to the core than sexism, which has shifted away as time has progressed.

But I've frozen time.

I have stopped creating "new" work, like Morrison's "new" Animal Man book and gone back to the 30's, the 50's etc and examined the characters as they were at the time because a hero always wants to be good, and always faces adversity. Such is the nature of story. This is what Morrison was picking at (and Moore, only with satire).

We feed on conflict alone. But what I'm attempting to bring to the discussion is the vehicle of conflict delivery. Yes Dawson is fighting pirates, that's the yoke of my story. A physical confrontation. But what slipped under the radar of "good guy saves his girlfriend" was a cultural stigma that A) She is incapable of saving herself and B) He was saving her because she is beautiful, not because she has otherwise interesting qualities.

Painting 2 Post 8

So let's talk about the other elephant in the room: R. Crumb.

Let's not even get started on how I look like him when he was young.

What Crumb did with his Genesis illustrations (the only illustrative work all fine artists can name beside Lichtenstein) was capitalize on the fact that he was generally doing all of the work on his projects.

What I mean by that is, cartoons/comics are a largely collaborative field. Any given comic book has a separate writer (or two), penciler, inker, letterer, and colorist.

Would the gallery have taken the exact same work if it was only in pencil, yet to be inked by a different individual than the one listed on the wall label? Probably not. Art is a tight-knit community, but when it comes to co-authorship, the red flags go up.

The Mickey Mouse I draw reference from was written/drawn by Floyd Gottfredson, but signed Walt Disney at the bottom of every strip. Now, Disney did write and draw the first month of the comic, but lets say GOttfredson wanted to display some of his handiwork in a gallery setting. Whose name goes on the wall label? And whats worse, what if Gottfredson hadn't written the strip, merely drew it. What now? Would a gallery even WANT to tackle that issue? Probably not.