Websnark

Comment from: SeanH posted at June 6, 2005 1:25 PM

That he calls you "Eric Snark" is the really brilliant bit.

Comment from: SeanH posted at June 6, 2005 1:27 PM

Actually, um, why's he talking about micropayments? Were micropayments mentioned in the trailer? I don't remember that, maybe they were...

Comment from: Shaenon posted at June 6, 2005 1:53 PM

Micropayments are the one way they've figured out to get at McCloud. Apparently, if micropayments are a bust, then all of McCloud's theories and all comics inspired by them are wrongheaded and without value.

I don't recall talking about micropayments at all when I was interviewed for the documentary last year (that's right; not all of the footage is three whole years old). Micropayments are not mentioned in the trailer; nor is any specific method of making money through webcomics. The clips in the trailer talk about the opportunities for artistic expression on the Web, which in the mentally-straitjacketed worldview of Scott Kurtz and the Penny Arcade guys means "get a haircut, ya damn hippie!"

Comment from: Tangent posted at June 6, 2005 1:57 PM

*shrug* I'd not even be aware of this if it wasn't for your post yesterday, Shaenon, and Eric's snarks today. But I must admit that the Goats article was hilarious without being mean-spirited.

BTW, I am even gladder now that I deleted the long post I was going to do about my take on this. The wise man says nothing and looks wise. The fool spouts his wisdom and looks the fool. ;) Or as so many of my friends keep saying, "shut up, Rob!" ;)

Robert A. Howard, Tangents reviewer

http://tangents.keenspace.com

Comment from: Shaenon posted at June 6, 2005 2:03 PM

If you think about it, this is a pretty amazing situation. Someone is making a movie about webcomics--a positive movie, based on the concept of the Web as a new frontier of expression and achievement--and the first response of several of the "big" webcartoonists is to try to rally their fans against it. The hell?

I'm imagining some crazy alternate universe in which the most popular and successful webcartoonists welcome wider public recognition of their chosen medium, and actually prefer to see that recognition go to smaller creators producing innovative, experimental work, rather than immediately throwing a hissy fit over whether their own fat faces get enough screentime. Man, that'd be nutty cuckoo, wouldn't it?

Comment from: Joshua Holbrook posted at June 6, 2005 2:40 PM

The thing that bugs me here is that nobody linked this Cat dude as far as I can tell. I've never heard of the damned guy, And even Google is failing me now so I'm STILL clueless as to what he actually makes. Bahh!

Comment from: Joshua Holbrook posted at June 6, 2005 2:42 PM

Wait... ERIC did! Whoops.

It... he has bad web design.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at June 6, 2005 2:48 PM

Follow the links to the actual Magic Inkwell archives. It was seminal infinite/expanded canvas work, and actively tried to push conceptual and artistic boundaries.

Whether or not it succeeded is in the eye of the beholder. I found it interesting, however, that Garza was quoted by Reinventing Comics, not vice versa. That actually puts Garza in the position of being one of the seminal figures, which I didn't realize.

(Note to T Campbell -- this kind of thing should be in the History.)

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at June 6, 2005 3:03 PM

Also under the heading of due diligence, Penny Arcade has responded -- not to me, per se, though they linked back here, but to the overall discussion in the different places it's taking place. And no, there was no insulting of people in it. If I'm going to say something about what I deem mean behavior, I'm also going to note decorum on their part.

Comment from: Jonathan Rosenberg posted at June 6, 2005 3:06 PM

Micropayments are the one way they've figured out to get at McCloud. Apparently, if micropayments are a bust, then all of McCloud's theories and all comics inspired by them are wrongheaded and without value.

This is a straw man argument, Shaenon. Tsk Tsk.

I'm sorry if I upset you with this, but it seems like you may have some personal baggage on these topics. The irony is that I seem to recall that you are one of MT's top earners due to your prolific volume; it is more likely that the years of backstrips you dumped on MT did a lot more to skew Cat's earnings than anything I've ever said.

Comment from: joeymanley posted at June 6, 2005 3:35 PM

Shaenon didn't "dump," she "gracefully deposited" her backlog on MT. Just FYI.

:)

Joey

www.moderntales.com

Comment from: quiller posted at June 6, 2005 3:36 PM

Well, it's weird. I can't blame Penny Arcade for being Penny Arcade. Mean, but funny is what they do, and this seems to qualify. I do think it reflects a bit of an ego that they decide that a documentary that doesn't include either them or Kurtz must not really be a documentary about webcomics. There are a lot of webcomics out there, and no one of them or even two of them are essential to the story.

I also agree that pretentious or not, an actual documentary on webcomics can't help but be good for recognition of the medium.

Comment from: Tangent posted at June 6, 2005 4:01 PM

You make it sound, Joey, like the Webcomic Consortiums (I like that title! *grin*) of Keenspot and Modern Tales are banks, investing the comedic money of webcomics wisely for a greater return.

Of course, this is true in a sense. Keenspot and MT guarantees some sort of return... but not as great a return as if you go solo. You can have a Howard Tayler go out and make money investing solo... but you can also have someone go out and lose everything in that attempt.

I suppose that makes Blank Label Comics into a small investment group of friends giving each other advice on what they heard were hot stock options. *grin*

Robert A. Howard, Tangents Reviewer

http://tangents.keenspace.com

Comment from: William_G posted at June 6, 2005 4:41 PM

The irony is that I seem to recall that you are one of MT's top earners due to your prolific volume; it is more likely that the years of backstrips you dumped on MT did a lot more to skew Cat's earnings than anything I've ever said.

ad hominem circumstantial

Comment from: Jonathan Rosenberg posted at June 6, 2005 4:57 PM

ad hominem circumstantial

I know! They're totally fun. I recommend them to all my friends.

Comment from: Eric Rowe posted at June 6, 2005 5:41 PM

I will be enjoying this phrase:

"Do you hear them, Clarice? Do you hear the mewing of the embedded head-kittens?"

... for the remainder of my evening.

Comment from: miyaa posted at June 6, 2005 6:12 PM

Who knew he was a big fan of Sluggy's Kittens?

Comment from: SeanH posted at June 6, 2005 6:26 PM

ad hominem circumstantial

I know! They're totally fun. I recommend them to all my friends.

They kind of lost direction after their first few albums.

Comment from: UrsulaV posted at June 6, 2005 6:37 PM

I have no opinion on the movie, or micropayments, or anything Scott McCloud did after "Understanding Comics" and I've never heard of Cat Garza. Please feel free to dismiss my opinion as visceral, uninformed, and badly out of the loop. Hell, *I* dismiss my opinion as such.

However, being totally ignorant of the situation, my basic thought before reading any of the dust-up that the PA strip was pretty harsh. I have a certain sympathy for wild-eyed idealist artist types, mind you--you can chalk it up to that if you like. But...thing is, there wasn't any real POINT to being mean on this one. There's plenty of savage humor in PA that's almost like, oh, the video game equivalent of political cartooning or something, and it usually has some sort of point. This just kinda felt like..."Look at the fat dumb idealist, ha ha!" Mostly I felt bad for the guy. I get excited about my art form myself, and I'm nothing much to look at--you could ridicule me just as easily if I started waxing about just how cool I find digital art. That'll teach non-hot people to be passionate about stuff where people might see 'em!

So, yeah, as a piece, it failed for me. I felt uncomfortable rather than amused. Oh, well. I'm hardly their target audience, and I highly doubt they'd care if they knew. And it's the internet, and people are cruel all the time, so most people seem to be dismissing it as just more internet cruelty, and anybody who is still capable of finding internet behavior mean as a hopelessly hypersensitive wussy. And that's fine. I also like baby animals and cried at the end of Crouching Tiger. I'm comfortable in my wusshood. S'all good.

Comment from: Shaenon posted at June 6, 2005 6:45 PM

Jonathan--

I'm sorry; I didn't realize that this was a conversation about financial strategies. I thought we were talking about critical/public recognition for good art. Personally, I didn't join Modern Tales with any concern one way or the other for Cat Garza's financial solvency, but if the success of MT has had any positive effect on him, I'm delighted.

As far as I can tell, the PvP and PA arguments against the documentary (which, let's keep in mind, no one has actually seen) boil down to the following:

1. It focuses on artsy/experimental comics, which are by definition maturbatory crap. The really good webcomics that deserve public attention are geek-niche humor strips, like, say, PvP and PA.

2. It focuses on comics that don't make much money, which by definition aren't nearly as important as comics that make more money, like, well, PvP and PA.

3. It's based on the false premise that the print comics world is hostile to artsy, experimental work, which is demonstrably wrong because you can walk into almost any comic-book store and pick up a cutting-edge, experimental indie work like, um, PvP. What's that? We just argued that PvP is the very opposite of cutting-edge and experimental? Oops.

Maybe I'm misreading.

Your point that the documentary is outdated by including three-year-old footage is good, but, dude, that's how long it takes to make a movie. When "Farenheit 9/11" came out, it was criticized for a lot of things, but you know what never came up? The fact that it included footage from three whole years ago.

Really, I'm not going to argue about whether the movie is any good, because, duh, I haven't seen it. But the aggressive streak of anti-intellectualism at work here bothers me. What I get from the PA and PvP rants is that any cartoonist who thinks too hard about their work, or tries too hard, should be stomped down until they stop trying to show the rest of us up.

And come on. ÏSomebodyÌs making a video documentary about webcomics without letting on that either of our sites exist (again)"? Exactly how many times in the past has someone made a video documentary about webcomics, let alone one that excludes PA and PvP? How often are these two comics excluded from ANY critical or pseudo-critical discussion of webcomics? Comixpedia loves 'em. So does Websnark. Both comics are on Scott McCloud's "Personal Top Twenty" list. They even get occasional writeups in the print comics press, which is more than the rest of us can say. But let one guy ignore them in his video documentary, and they've been cruelly ignored by the ivory-tower eggheads of the world. Talk about thin skins.

Comment from: Prodigal posted at June 6, 2005 6:45 PM

The comic, I found mean but funny.

The personal attack on Cat in the rants page? That was just asshole behavior.

Comment from: SeanH posted at June 6, 2005 7:06 PM

And come on. ÏSomebodyÌs making a video documentary about webcomics without letting on that either of our sites exist (again)"? Exactly how many times in the past has someone made a video documentary about webcomics, let alone one that excludes PA and PvP? How often are these two comics excluded from ANY critical or pseudo-critical discussion of webcomics? Comixpedia loves 'em. So does Websnark. Both comics are on Scott McCloud's "Personal Top Twenty" list. They even get occasional writeups in the print comics press, which is more than the rest of us can say. But let one guy ignore them in his video documentary, and they've been cruelly ignored by the ivory-tower eggheads of the world. Talk about thin skins.

Yeah, this is kind of a sticking point for me. If I were making a documentary about innovation and experimention in the webcomics world, I doubt I'd give much screen time to either comic. I love both of them, mind, I think they're hysterically funny - but not relevant to what the documentary appears to be about.

Comment from: B.G.Aesop posted at June 6, 2005 7:18 PM

Well, speaking as someone who hasn't seen the preview OR the movie, I have a useless opinion. But here it is anyway. Personally, I thought that the PA strip was hilarious. I think the rant was also funny, though not as much so. Also, as the site has died, can anyone tell me if this is supposed to be about webcomics in general or is it about artsy fartsy webcomics? Because if it's about the former, then it sounds ridiculously bad. Seriously, think about it:It does not include any information on the 2 most successful webcomics out there, and at least one of those comics is so incredibly significant to the genre that it can spawn this entire debate on its own. This debate would not happen without PA. Several HUNDRED THOUSAND people would not have heard of this movie if it weren't for PA. Also, I do not see the personal attack on Cat on the page. I see a silly picture of him, supposedly taken from HIS SITE(or rather, the site of the movie, which he is inexorably tied to now) and the comical lie(?) that he attempts to buy weed from them at my arch-nemesis, San Diego Comicon. Personally, I think it's funny, as he looks like a hippy and appears to be stoned in that picture. You could do this to anyone with a bad enough pic. It would be funny no matter who they did it to. The PA guys also said that they were not mocking him for his looks, but for his opinions, and his looks just happened to be funny as well.

I mean seriously, if PA can make this huge a splash in the webcomics community without even trying, how can the docufolks justify not including them?

Comment from: Jonathan Rosenberg posted at June 6, 2005 7:38 PM

Shaenon, when people align over an issue based on their financial interests, I call it a financial issue.

This is about one person taking another to task for being mean to a third person in a cartoon. A friggin' cartoon. If we can't be mean in cartoons anymore, what's the point? Civil discourse gets so dull, and it takes so much longer to make your point. I appreciate brevity.

Comment from: joeymanley posted at June 6, 2005 7:43 PM

Jon:

More likely the alignment is: "People who know cat garza personally and think he's a swell guy," and "people who don't."

FWIW, John Barber (now an editorial staffer at Marvel, which is about as far from the Ivory Tower as you can get in comics) also got roasted in the strip (he's the one talking about working with the page when it's not a page), and nobody's up in arms about that.

But, then, no photograph of John Barber was reproduced in the P-A rant ...

Joey

www.moderntales.com

Comment from: Jonathan Rosenberg posted at June 6, 2005 7:50 PM

Joey, can you guys who know him best ask him how he feels about all this? Personally, I would love it if I was caricatured in a PA strip.

Comment from: T Campbell posted at June 6, 2005 7:51 PM

I'm not gonna take the sides already drawn here, but a couple of points that everyone seems to be missing--

The documentary also makes no mention of Abrams, Frazer, Milholland, Rosenberg or Gallagher... or ANYONE on Keenspot. I could see missing some of those names, but ALL of them? That does indicate a certain focus.

Second, our little scene may give PA and PVP all the love we can shower, but this documentary is meant to be seen by many people who have never read webcomics before in their life. Maybe it won't be, but I thought that was the goal. If that's so, I think it is a failure of service not to tell these people about which comics are actually supporting themselves outside the MT model--

--if only to throw the courageous experimenters, who refuse to let mammon slow their explorations, into sharp relief.

Comment from: joeymanley posted at June 6, 2005 7:52 PM

cat is often offline for months at a time. We hear from him sporadically. His isn't the most financially stable of lives. Damn that subscription model!

Joey

www.moderntales.com

Comment from: T Campbell posted at June 6, 2005 7:55 PM

"Documentary" should read as "the Google-cached roster of people involved with the documentary."

Comment from: T Campbell posted at June 6, 2005 7:56 PM

I do hope the notoriety will give Cat a spike.

Comment from: Jonathan Rosenberg posted at June 6, 2005 8:09 PM

Then I would suggest we lay off of condemning PA until we hear whether Cat feels he needs the support of the community rallying around him to fend off this attack that he likely doesn't even know about.

Comment from: Stuart Robertson posted at June 6, 2005 8:25 PM

It's not like Top Two Three Films are the only people who can make a documentary, or that this is the only film that can be made on this subject. Just like anyone can make a comic... just about anyone can make a movie. If you don't like this film -- you COULD make your own. ;-)

Comment from: Tangent posted at June 6, 2005 8:27 PM

*sigh* Almost wrote up an article on this. Decided not to because I don't know everything that's going on here and it's better to not reveal how ignorant I am by blathering on in an article about a video whose trailer I've not even seen.

And now I find out that Tycho and Gabe have linked everyone involved in this fun little fiasco. Alas! My chance at fame, lost, because I decided to be responsible for once! *fakes swooning*

*wry grin*

Not to mention I honestly felt that Shaenon's comments on Sunday were a tad out of character for her and I really didn't want to get involved. Let's see... lost a chance at a billion zillion hits from PA, but also didn't insert my foot in my mouth (again).

I think it's an equal exchange. *grin*

BTW, Tycho and Gabe's comic was a tad idiotic and sophmoric. The initial "rant" was pathetic, however. Perhaps they need Scott Kurtz's wife standing over them with a baseball bat and insisting they wait 24 hours before posting something? *wry grin*

Nah, wouldn't have helped in any event. :)

Rob

Comment from: apb posted at June 6, 2005 10:33 PM

Are the webcomics a reality, and a new comic market in its infancy? Was the boom in the early 90s a reality? Should we reinvent the business? Do we really need to reinvent comics on the web? What do they look like?
I would say that a documentary that claims it is trying to answer these questions should definitely be giving screen time to the people that have been able to make "the webcomic market" work.
To be honest, I read the PA article the day it was posted, and it didn't even occur to me that it was particularly mean until your post, Eric. In fact, I've reread it, and it still doesn't seem all that mean...Perhaps this is about some of your own sensitivities around looks and image?

Comment from: alienpriest posted at June 6, 2005 11:10 PM

Someone please correct me where IÌm seeing things a bit skewed; IÌm a relative noob in webcomics.

From what IÌve learned in the past few months is that both PvP and PA are considered to be very successful as far as webcomics go, their creators are able to actually pay a couple bills on an income that is derived somehow from these works. Also, in the past couple months, I have seen two events of trans-forums internet drama sweep over multiple comics related blogs and inboxes. Shots are fired and everyone lines up on their side, weighing in with the viewpoints that define where the whole of the webcomics community is standing at the moment if taken in all at once.

The connection I see is that in either of the two events, the creators of PvP, and PA on an angry defensive. Two of the most successful are two of the most dissenting voices in the community. I guess what IÌm getting at is that I donÌt understand exactly why. Why weigh in at all if you are one of these guys? Their comics are strong enough to stand against the grievances. They shouldnÌt feel the need to be on the defensive, I think. Maybe there is something I am not seeing here. I donÌt understand how a successful venture could be damaged by a little negative criticism, or how a heavily exposed venture could be injured by a lack of a minor exposure.

Comment from: Jamie posted at June 6, 2005 11:48 PM

ThereÌs Geeky Humor, Crass humor, artistic experimentation, good, bad and ugly, all at the click of a mouse. All on an equal playing ground. Welcome to the 21st century. Finally, every man, woman and child (with Internet access) has an equal voice. Now, whereÌs my goddamned flying car.

Comment from: Kyukei posted at June 7, 2005 12:34 AM

One last quick thing. A few people claimed Tycho was being mean by posting that picture of the cat guy on the site. That was the picture their site was using to promote the film. You had to click on it to see the trailer. ---Gabe

Now, forgive me for being 'unsympathetic,' but the PA crew has every right to call attention to the nonsense involving playing that trailer.

I'm not even talking about the trailer or the movie. I'm talking about the fact that the picture of Garza which is being "mocked" is the one being used as promotional material. There is nothing - NOTHING - I could envision that screams "UNPROFESSIONAL!" more loudly than a picture like that being used as the hyperlink image clicked to open the trailer.

Peter Jackson gets away - *sorta* - with looking like he stepped out of his mother's basement. This is because he made a bajillion trillion dollars. Directors can get away with wearing baseball caps on set and weighing more than siamese twin weightlifters (and Jackson himself has become much more image conscious recently, and has dropped a fair number of pounds).

If you're trying to convince people that webcomics are a viable medium for artistic expression -as well as- some sort of financial security, I'm sorry but Garza is not the guy you want on the front cover. Because, though he is willing to experiment, the truth is... He's failed.

He comes on the internet, as some of his friends have stated earlier in the comments, only sporadically. Most likely because he must work to support himself and his family. His business model has not yet been proven to be a success. Meanwhile, Gabe, Tycho, and Scott are no more photogenic than Garza, my guess would be. In fact, the two have all but admitted it in their more recent post. But take a look at the FARK thread Gabe links. There's a *dash* of professionalism in the fact that neither of them looks sToNeD oUt Of ThEiR mInDs!

Is that Garza's fault? No. But that doesn't mean the filmmakers shouldn't get taken to task for it. Garza's just an unfortunate casualty of the situation. When FARK picks up a funny picture from a magazine interview or advertisement, it's not the model's fault, it's the photographer's. But that won't stop people from mocking the image, and associating the model with that mockery simply because s/he is the only face that can be assigned to the silliness.

Also, in reply to Shaenon's 3-points post:

Allow me to quote from the cached version of Top Two Three's page: "Are the webcomics a reality, and a new comic market in its infancy? Was the boom in the early 90s a reality? Should we reinvent the business? Do we really need to reinvent comics on the web? What do they look like?"

Should we reinvent the business? You're going to talk about business and ignore Penny-Arcade and PVP (and Keen)? I can now, indeed, say that the movie has already lost significant credibility in my eyes. PA and PVP are more traditional-style comics that have shown success. If you're ignoring the middle ground that might link to a more extremist vision, you're passing up the link that allows most people to make the connection in their heads between print comics and webcomics.

But I guess I should have expected that. The director's French.

Comment from: gwalla posted at June 7, 2005 12:35 AM

I would like to remind people that all of this is based on a movie trailer that is only a few minutes long. It's a bit early to whine about how "huge sections of the webcomics world aren't represented" when you've only seen a tiny fraction of the actual movie and have no idea how much of any part of webcomics is covered.

It's a trailer. Like any movie trailer, it's made up of snippets that the filmmakers thought would be most likely to pique the interest of an audience and make them curious about the movie. In this case, it would be quotes that would sound provocative to people who are unfamiliar with the topic. "I'm making enough money to live comfortably" just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Comment from: Kyukei posted at June 7, 2005 1:28 AM

gwalla -

While this is true, at the same time, both Kurtz and the PA boys have said they are not in the movie. They would probably know. I would actually be just as upset at a casual reference to those sites - if they're included in the movie and their creators don't know about it, the mention must be rather more as a side note. Which would marginalize what they've done even more than ignoring them does, in a way.

And if the movie talks about the mainstream style without mentioning either of those, it's still missing out on the two biggest success stories. And it's not like the 'success stories' group is looking to thin the ranks, there's only a few that have done so well as to reach the level where the webcomic becomes the JOB. Also, I would expect T to have a fairly good idea of who is in the movie.

The documentary also makes no mention of Abrams, Frazer, Milholland, Rosenberg or Gallagher... or ANYONE on Keenspot ---Stolen from his post above

If you're missing ALL those names, I have a hard time imagining the filmmaker doing any sort of justice to the full picture of the webcomic community.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at June 7, 2005 1:51 AM

While this is true, at the same time, both Kurtz and the PA boys have said they are not in the movie. They would probably know. I would actually be just as upset at a casual reference to those sites - if they're included in the movie and their creators don't know about it, the mention must be rather more as a side note.

Well, not necessarily. There could be significant coverage without Kurtz or the PA guys being interviewed. Why they wouldn't be interviewed if this is the case is beyond me.

If the documentary doesn't talk about Abrams, Illiad, the PA folks or Gallagher (or Kurtz, for that matter) then I'll agree it's fundamentally flawed. (It could be argued that Rosenberg and Milholland should be in this documentary, but wouldn't be as crucial. Abrams and Illiad are extremely significant to the evolution and expansion of online comics (Bill Holbrook should be there as well), and Kurtz, Gallagher, and Penny-Arcade's creators are among the most successful. Failing to acknowledge them and examine wha they've done would be a crucial gap.

Assuming, that is, that this documentary is about webcomics instead of simply being about the evolution of the art form. If the latter -- if it really is a step forward from Reinventing Comics and the independent print comics scene, then its limited scope might not include the above (though should still include Gallagher at the least). However, if that's the case then then they shouldn't be advertising this as a documentary on the evolution/revolution of... well, digital comics. They should just hype Kirk Kim and Kolchalka, hit the high points of expanded canvas and Flash and call it a day.

One way or the other, this movie is going to do good things for the medium -- but if it misses too big a chunk of the medium in the process, it'll also miss the chance to do great things, and that'll be sad.

Comment from: Lapis Lazuli posted at June 7, 2005 2:11 AM

I made a comment on the other entry about this before seeing PA's update, which I think deflates most of the mean criticism. [Sidenote: PA is a huge webcomic. It's the colossus of Rhodes, and not including it would indicate an interest not in the future of webcomics themselves, but in the select group they want to favor or martyrize]

One last quick thing. A few people claimed Tycho was being mean by posting that picture of the cat guy on the site. That was the picture their site was using to promote the film. You had to click on it to see the trailer. I have no problem commenting on the guys ridiculous statements, but I want to make it clear that we are in no position to make fun of someone regarding their personal appearance. A few months ago a photographer came out to take some pictures of us for a magazine article. We told them that including a picture of us would hurt circulation but they didn't believe us. Anyway there's a pretty funny FARK Photoshop thread that uses the picture. As of right now none of them involve the two of us having sex, but I am not naŒve enough to believe that will continue.

So, aside from the pothead/hippy joke (which I'd hardly consider spiteful, being partial to that group myself), where's the purported malignance?

Shaenon...actually prefer to see that recognition go to smaller creators producing innovative, experimental work, rather than immediately throwing a hissy fit over whether their own fat faces get enough screentime.

Seems like it's here, to me.

Comment from: siwangmu posted at June 7, 2005 2:37 AM

What I find very interesting is the comment on the Goats site where the person claimed they could say everything Eric said in under 250 words, proceeded to summarize, and in the process missed (or intentionally avoided, I can't know) the point of everything Eric said. That, people, would be why he uses so many words. To express　ideas in detail, with accuracy! I know, it short-circuits　WhatI all the fun arguing-past-each-other antics of internet debate, but if you are actually interested in ideas, it keeps the blood-pressure nice and low. It would be more intellectually honest for me to go there and respond, but I sort of don't know if I can post there　without signing up for something or other, and, er, don't feel the same license to babble on some stranger's site as I do... on... this ... stranger's site. Look, a shiny thing!

Last comment, on something totally different: I enjoyed the Sports Night quote-thing, but I have to say that it doesn't actually represent American hunting accurately, to the best of my knowledge. Here's what I know: in South Carolina, if they stop hunting the deer, the population will thin via starvation and accident alone, because there is a serious deer population problem. Also, if I remember correctly, you have to apply specially to even get a license to kill a doe, and can kill no more than 2 or so in a year.

It could be that with those facts in mind, the picture remains the same, but since the piece does (effectively) play on your emotions, I felt obligated to bring what little I know into the picture. Oh, also, the hunters I know eat the venison, because it would, in fact, be a shame not to. Would some sort of organized population-control that involved painless deaths or something be more humane? Yes. Would that be a great deal more difficult and expensive to implement than the current system that self-regulates by registering and setting rules and limits on hunting and is staffed by a perpetual group of volunteers? Yes. Would that increase in difficulty and expense be worth it? That's an interesting moral question to which I have no definite answer.

If the options I have are (1) regulated hunting and (2) the deaths from starvation, disease and more frequent road accidents (including people-deaths in that case) that result from a dramatic overpopulation problem? I choose (1) with no regret.

That said, I've never killed a deer and would hate to ever do so. Also, those hunters I know? I disagree with them on every other issue it's possible to disagree on--said only because "California Liberal Defending Hunting" is different, to me, from "Southern Hunter Defending Hunting." The second perspective is by no means invalid, just saying--I'm not saying all this so's I can shoot me some deer. Also, because I am way, unnecessarily long-winded, no one's going to read this, but I'll feel better having spoken up.

Comment from: siwangmu posted at June 7, 2005 2:45 AM

Crap! The deer thing relates to previous post, not this one! Sorry, all!

Comment from: Maritza Campos posted at June 7, 2005 4:06 AM

A lot of people wonder who this Cat Garza is. Well, he used to make a strip called "Cuentos de la Frontera" which was a cool project about mexican legends. His stuff is/was experimental (I'm actually not familiar with what he's working on right now, someone knows) but it was easily understandable. It was narrative and not uncomprehensible at all. Also, Cat draws in an expressive, funny, old-fashioned-looking style. I had the pleasure of talking to him in my first SDCC. He's a really nice guy too.

What I don't get is this sort of rivalry between "artsy" and "commercial". Where is all the animosity coming from? In all my years in the scene, it has ALWAYS been there. One could say it's inherent, and there always will be a confrontation. Comercially succesful comics/whatever yearn to be loved by the critics, and critically aclaimed comics/whatever wish they had bigger audiences. The result is that there's a war going on, a "us vs. them" mentality. And the words fly by: Pretencious. Sell-outs. Snobbish. Lowest-denominator caterers. Pushers of the micropayment/suscription idealistic/unrealistic model. People who give their comics away for free thus hurting all professional cartoonists everywhere. And blablablablah...

And yet there are people in this industry, or this scene if you prefer to call it that way, that is simply friends with everybody, that listens what the other side has to say, that keeps on pumping comics quietly and away from the controversy. There are people who are VERY succesful with the critics or the masses or the dollars, who simply stay away from all the internet webcomic drama, that is really starting to get boring. I can give names... Bill Holbrook. Tatsuya Ishida. Derek Kirk Kim. Michael Poe. Illiad. Pete Abrams. Greg Dean. Demian5.

Of course others live for said drama, and on the other hand there are dorks like me who insist that we webcartoonists are all on the same side and should be working together and not against each other.

Anyway this post is pointless, but I'm suffering from insomnia anyway. Apologies if it makes very little sense.

Maritza

College Roomies from Hell!!!

Comment from: JackSlack posted at June 7, 2005 4:21 AM

Actually, Maritza, it made plenty of sense, and what's more, I think you hit the nail on the head with this remark.

"What I don't get is this sort of rivalry between "artsy" and "commercial". Where is all the animosity coming from? In all my years in the scene, it has ALWAYS been there."

This is what this whole ruckus is about. Right there.

Comment from: Kyukei posted at June 7, 2005 4:32 AM

One could say it's inherent, and there always will be a confrontation. Comercially succesful comics/whatever yearn to be loved by the critics, and critically aclaimed comics/whatever wish they had bigger audiences.

What interests me about this point of view is that, for the most part, it doesn't really apply to webcomics, because the medium is - for the most part - self-critical. Those who are "critics" of webcomics have, to my knowledge, usually tried their hand in at least some part of the biz themselves. A large portion of webcomic 'critiques' is found in the newsposts of other webcomics referencing something they read or saw (the most obvious example of this being PA itself, which periodically links to - and subsequently "wangs" - various smaller comics).

In addition, many of the big comics are considered to be high-quality by at least a reasonable portion of 'critics' - inasmuch as webcomic criticism exists (an evolving medium of criticism within the evolving medium of comics... now THERE'S a subject for a documentary). I would say the most commonly-critiqued of the bunch is Kurtz's PVP, and even he has his staunch supporters (like that Eric somethingorother...).

I think the rift is largely self-created. The whole point of an 'artsy' comic (imagined as the sort of "infinite canvas"-type works that are under fire here) is to be -different-. Otherwise, it'd still be mainstream. But that requires a starting point from which it must deviate. So there is, built into the differences between the two, a significant ideological void. The 'mainstream' (I think commercial is the wrong word, as there are plenty of comics just like PA or PVP that are not profit-based, even if there was a chance they could be) comics are then placed in an unenviable position:

The 'artsy' comics generally claim to be more... well... artistic. That suggests some greater unquantifiable value that an artsy comic would hold, that can not then be held by a mainstream comic. Yet, like Maritza says, at the same time, the mainstream comic has the audience an artsy comic might somehow feel it deserves. Yes, I know, not all 'artsy' creators are this way - and it sounds like this Garza isn't this kind of type at all - but nevertheless don't pretend as if this attitude isn't one held by a fair portion of experimental artists. I'm not blaming artsy comic creators, as they seem for the most part genuinely interested in just getting a chance to create...

But the nature of a revolution requires a throwing-down of the old guard, and is instigated by the newcomer.

Comment from: Mithandir posted at June 7, 2005 8:13 AM

Maritza,

As I understand it (and Mr Burns indicated in his own post) this rivalry has existed pretty much as long as art. In the renaissance there were those who painted portraits for wealthy nobles and those who revolted at the mere idea (and concequently often starved, but that aside). In fact a simple time machine would prove that this behaviour has existed far longer than that and show that behind every caveman drawing a hunting scene on a cave wall stood another caveman muttering "sellout" (or in fact "ugh ghaz grm", which we presume means either that, or is an inquiry for directions to the closest toilets).

Me, I just stay out of the whole mess by being neither "artsy" nor "commercial" (nor succesfull, obviously, tho I won't pretend that's on purpose).

In the end people just like drawing lines. Here's my side, there's yours. Reason cannot cross this imaginary boundary as somehow every other word of what one side says is lost along the way. It's curious that the newer the line is, the more fiercely it divides (wet paint, watch your step!) while as it gets older the paint fades away and hoels appear through which reason can pass.

The line dividing people here these past few days is very fresh - webcomics are new - but also very old because the argument is old (which is why others in these threads show more moderation).

Oh, and feel free to give me a scolding/flaming/whatever, all. After this post I've probably deserved anything you can throw at me :)

Comment from: jpcardier posted at June 7, 2005 1:19 PM

"But I guess I should have expected that. The director's French."

I'm done with this. Just stop now, please. It's demeaning, and it's wrong. I wont rant on it. Just, stop.

Comment from: gwalla posted at June 7, 2005 1:58 PM

As I understand it (and Mr Burns indicated in his own post) this rivalry has existed pretty much as long as art. In the renaissance there were those who painted portraits for wealthy nobles and those who revolted at the mere idea (and concequently often starved, but that aside).

Actually, the idea of "art for art's sake" is a modern idea. In fact, the idea of personal expression as the primary purpose of art is modern. During the Renaissance there were no "sell-outs" because there was no concept of "selling out": "art" was synonymous with "skilled trade", like shoemaking or carpentry.

Comment from: jpcardier posted at June 7, 2005 3:48 PM

From gwalla:

"Actually, the idea of "art for art's sake" is a modern idea. In fact, the idea of personal expression as the primary purpose of art is modern. During the Renaissance there were no "sell-outs" because there was no concept of "selling out": "art" was synonymous with "skilled trade", like shoemaking or carpentry."

Yes....and no. Neal Stephenson talks about this during a Slashdot interview, and it is true. *Prior* to the Renaissance, arts, whether visual, auditory or storytelling was aimed towards the common populace. Stephenson calls the "Beowulf" type of writing (really storytelling prior to the press). However, it applies to all the arts.

Art and entertainment tended to be consumed by the mass populace, so works which could be broadly enjoyed by the population at large tended to be the most popular, and got the most acclaim.

*However* during the Renaissance specifically, things changed. The rise of a rich merchant class who enjoyed art changed things a lot. Stephenson calls this the "Medici" type of art. Under it, you have a patron. The only persons taste that you need to please is that patron, not the populace. This completely changes things. It really brought about "high art" as a concept.

Since then we have had the divide between popular A&E supported by the mass audience (low art), and patroned A&E supported by the government, wealthy individuals, endowments, corporations, and the "artigentisa" for lack of a better term (high art). They are different, with different audiences in mind.

Finally, "Art for Art's Sake" is an essay by Oscar Wilde. While timeless, I wouldn't call it "modern". ;)

Comment from: gwalla posted at June 7, 2005 10:04 PM

Finally, "Art for Art's Sake" is an essay by Oscar Wilde. While timeless, I wouldn't call it "modern". ;)

Technically, "Modern Age" is more or less synonymous with "Post-Renaissance": everything from the mid-18th century to the present. I wouldn't call Wilde contemporary, but he is a modern (not to be confused with a modernist).

Comment from: Kyukei posted at June 7, 2005 11:11 PM

"But I guess I should have expected that. The director's French."

"I'm done with this. Just stop now, please. It's demeaning, and it's wrong. I wont rant on it. Just, stop."

---------------------------

...

"Doctor, we've done it! We've actually found a man without a sense of humor!"

Comment from: peterb posted at June 8, 2005 9:32 AM

"But I guess I should have expected that. The director's French."

I'm done with this. Just stop now, please. It's demeaning, and it's wrong. I wont rant on it. Just, stop.

Nous nous rendons!

Comment from: jpcardier posted at June 8, 2005 12:53 PM

Posted by: Kyukei

"I'm done with this. Just stop now, please. It's demeaning, and it's wrong. I wont rant on it. Just, stop.">>

---------------------------

...

"Doctor, we've done it! We've actually found a man without a sense of humor!"

---------------------------

---------------------------

This presupposes what you stated was *funny*. It wasn't. It was shorthand for "Let's rag on the French some more."

"Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys" on the Simpsons was funny the first 3 times I heard it. Eddie Izzard talking about the "French being, well, so fucking French" was funny.

The French have been vilified by our media and our government for a while now. At this point, you would have had to work a good deal harder to be funny. French as the punchline? Lacking in bringing the funny.

Comment from: Eric Burns posted at June 8, 2005 1:08 PM

The French have been vilified by our media and our government for a while now.

"A while" in this particular circumstance being defined as "roughly as long as there has been a France and an England, or at least geographical land masses that were inhabited that knew about one another."

Despite several examples where France and England comingled politically and through populace, there has been a rivalry that has grown instead of weakened. They mock the British, the British mock them. Despite 229 years of legal separation -- a separation that is directly thanks to our alliance with France during the American Revolution -- our attitudes towards the French have continued to follow Anglo lines.

Put another way, Americans make fun of the French, and the French make fun of Americans.

All that being said, I didn't think Kyukei's comment was a joke. Glib, yes, but not a joke. Kyukei seemed to be making a point about prevailing Gallic attitudes towards art, and a pretty solid culture of extreme opinions about said art. Which to be honest my experience has borne out as well -- on the critical side of the equation, there is a general continental attitude towards dogmatic assertions of what is art and what isn't.

There are, of course, exceptions. But the prevailing sentiment colors our attitude.

Comment from: jpcardier posted at June 8, 2005 2:29 PM

From the Snark himself:

>

""A while" in this particular circumstance being defined as "roughly as long as there has been a France and an England, or at least geographical land masses that were inhabited that knew about one another."

Despite several examples where France and England comingled politically and through populace, there has been a rivalry that has grown instead of weakened. They mock the British, the British mock them. Despite 229 years of legal separation -- a separation that is directly thanks to our alliance with France during the American Revolution -- our attitudes towards the French have continued to follow Anglo lines."

Yes and no. Franco-American relations have waxed and waned over our countries combined history, depending on the governments of both. Prior to WWII, De Gaulle distrusted the Brits, and by extension, the Americans. Post WWII, our countries were very close. Until De Gaulle quit NATO. De Gaulle is an, "interesting" figure in French Politics. We did enter Vietnam partly to help French economic interests there, and De Gaulle eventually condemned us for the war there. Odd duck, De Gaulle.

"Put another way, Americans make fun of the French, and the French make fun of Americans.

All that being said, I didn't think Kyukei's comment was a joke. Glib, yes, but not a joke. Kyukei seemed to be making a point about prevailing Gallic attitudes towards art, and a pretty solid culture of extreme opinions about said art. Which to be honest my experience has borne out as well -- on the critical side of the equation, there is a general continental attitude towards dogmatic assertions of what is art and what isn't.

There are, of course, exceptions. But the prevailing sentiment colors our attitude."

You see, here is my problem. "the director is French" is part of what I call an "All x are y" attitude. "All x are y" is a logical fallacy, and has to be. You can make statements about culture, history and goverment of a populace. But you cannot state "Because all Canadians are cowards, he won't fight me". You don't know all Canadians. This one might pull your spleen from it's preferred location.

We don't know what the director's attitudes are. The fact that he's French doesn't mean he's a Truffaut-raving, autuer-subscribing, Sartre-worshipping, multinationalist suffering from ennui and gout, terribly in need of a shower. I mean, c'mon! This is just shorthand. Let's take a few more examples:

"I should have expected it. The director is Canadian."

"I should have expected it. The director is Jewish."

"I should have expected it. The director is a woman."

"I should have expected it. The director is black."

The first two along with the French are part of my ancestry. The other two not. But people would still get ticked about it. It's just a lot more accepted to rag on the French.

A lot of Gallic culture is opposed to American culture. But a lot of it isn't. A whole lot of French artists in all mediums (yes, I know the proper term here is media, but it has connotations that are confusing) come to the States to work and to live. And vice versa. *Somehow* American television and film have a following in France. So there's somebody in godforsaken home of Sartre, Curie, Pasteur and Seurat that likes Mickey D's, Disney Paris, and the latest Adam Sandler masterpiece.

Comment from: Kyukei posted at June 8, 2005 11:30 PM

Post WWII, our countries were very close. Until De Gaulle quit NATO. --- Posted in reply to:

Despite several examples where France and England comingled politically and through populace, there has been a rivalry that has grown instead of weakened. They mock the British, the British mock them. Despite 229 years of legal separation -- a separation that is directly thanks to our alliance with France during the American Revolution -- our attitudes towards the French have continued to follow Anglo lines.

... I don't that really responds to Eric's comment. Just because the countries are politically close, that doesn't mean the respective populaces of the nations will be the same way. Look at the United States and Canada, your other example. Just like you said, Americans stereotype Canadians as horse-riding, peace-loving wimps (except for the hockey players). Nevertheless, diplomatically the countries are very close (in large part because of the geographical proximity). Many Americans call Canada the 51st state, both because of its political ties, and because of the derogatory nature of the stereotypes of Canadians as a weak peoples. Just because the US and French governments were getting along, that doesn't prevent the people of the nations from ridiculing each other - something that has continued to occur no matter what the political relations have been. Americans mock pretty much everybody, and pretty much everybody mocks Americans. We're just a fun-lovin' group, I guess.

You see, here is my problem. "the director is French" is part of what I call an "All x are y" attitude. "All x are y" is a logical fallacy, and has to be. You can make statements about culture, history and goverment of a populace. But you cannot state "Because all Canadians are cowards, he won't fight me". You don't know all Canadians. This one might pull your spleen from it's preferred location.

You're making the presumption that what I said was intended as hurtful. I was not insulting the director. You're right, not only do I not know his motives, the film isn't even out yet. But nevertheless, there is a prevailing stereotype of the French as being somewhat snobbish. That leads -directly- into the joke I chose to make. And like it or not, much humor is derived directly from stereotypes. Either playing into a stereotype, or breaking out of it.

Examples: Francis and Brent from PvP fit into stereotypes quite nicely... Marcy, on the other hand, breaks the "gamer girl as either super-sexed or complete nerd" stereotype quite well. Both can supply plenty of jokes (I'm aware that there are also plenty of other considerations - I'm simplifying to make a point, so sue me =P). But a joke about Francis hyperventilating because he can't beat Skull at video games is only funny if there is an established belief in the readers that hardcore gamers react in that fashion when beaten by 'n00bs' and that Francis fits into that mold.

Maybe I was being politically incorrect with my statement. But humor isn't known for its political correctness, and being PC is usually one of the first casualties to a good joke.

BTW, I won't respond to anything more on this thread - not because I don't think there's plenty more good debate that could be had, but because I feel like I managed to mostly derail the debate with one little comment. JP - or anybody, really - if you'd like to continue, feel free to email me (kyukei@gmail.com)

Sorry 'bout the lengthy post. :)

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: