To continue the " GOOD-BAD " discussion where Mr. Mankoff in the You Tube interview defended the inferior drawings the New Yorker buys and publishes on a regular basis, it can get pretty dicey when one starts to discuss good vs. bad, good vs. evil, etc. . . You can end up in a philosophical dialogue and ending up where you started. You get into context, etc.
Then there is the whole new meaning for "BAD " . . BAD is GOOD, now. Like, " Man, that dude plays a BAD trumpet ! " Meaning, to the unhip " Man, that dude plays a GOOD trumpet ! "
Question for Mr. Mankoff: Which is "better" . . " A BAD GOOD CARTOONIST "
or a " GOOD BAD CARTOONIST ? "
Why settle for either ? THEY ARE BOTH NO GOOD.
What would Satan do ?
If it is "OKAY" to publish GREAT GAGS OR GREAT WRITING ALONG WITH INFERIOR ART, ( Like The New Yorker continues to do )
THEN, SOMEONE TELL ME, WHY IN THE LIVING HELL DID UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE HIRE SOMEONE ELSE TO CONTINUE " DOONESBURY ", which started out with inferior drawing. The answer is simple, DOONESBURY was so uniquely and masterfully written that they KNEW it would be even GREATER if it was drawn "better". The secret was to draw DOONESBURY like TRUDEAU WISHED HE COULD DRAW DOONESBURY OR THE WAY DOONESBURY WOULD LOOK LIKE IF TRUDEAU COULD DRAW BETTER.
The same with BOONDOCKS AND GARFIELD. AND MUCH OF THE COVERS OF THE BOOKS FOR EVEN "THE FAR SIDE" WERE DONE BY ARTISTS THAT COULD DRAW LIKE THE ORIGINATORS "WISHED" THEY COULD DO.
IN OTHER WORDS, There are cartoonists out there that can draw MANKOFF'S STYLE" even BETTER than MANKOFF. The same with SIPRESS and SMALLER and the list is almost endless. I don't think Trudeau or Magruder got their feelings hurt or INSISTED they MUST draw their own material.
IT'S A NO-BRAINER TO REALIZE THAT THERE IS TALENT OUT THERE THAT CAN DO WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO AND DO IT BETTER THAN YOU WILL EVER DO, AT WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO.
SOMEONE REMINDED ME YESTERDAY, THAT IN AFGHANISTAN, THERE IS SUCH A THING AS GOOD BAD GUYS and just plain BAD GUYS.
The BAD GUYS are the hardened Al Queda/hardened Taliban who are trying to kill you all the time.
Then you have the GOOD BAD GUYS. These are BAD GUYS, but these guys give you information on the other bad guys, and by cooperating with us, after an exchange of money , that makes them GOOD BAD GUYS.
THIS I UNDERSTAND, IT MAKES SENSE, ( I think ).
BUT, A GOOD BAD CARTOONIST ? ( I DON"T KNOW , SOUNDS LIKE THERE IS SOMETHING ROTTEN IN DENMARK )
I've got some beach front property in Arizona if anyone is interested.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
It is a given that a good joke will save a bad drawing, but a good drawing will not save a bad joke.
Roy, I'm of the opinion that the way a cartoon is drawn is the way it is meant to be. I don't believe in a proscribed notion of what is a well drawn cartoon because a "good drawing" is not the most foregrounded (in historical art terms) quality in what is actually a device to deliver a joke to the reader.
Just as a trumpet and a saxaphone, both in the brass section and both musical instruments, are differentiated by their unique "timbre", the way a given cartoonist draws is their unique signature.
I like Barbara Smallers drawings and Dave Sipress's drawings becasue that is their unique signature. I liked the way David Myers drew because it was unique to him - you would maybe consider him a bad drawer, but you could say the same about Quinten Blake. Sometimes I love that unruled line and that wayward squiggle in a sort of Wabi-Sabi way.
Hi Rod,
Interesting viewpoint. I understand and appreciate exactly what you mean.
Remember, I was responding to Bob Mankoff's use of the term "GOOD BAD DRAWING". ( We ALL know what he meant, don't we ? )
And he was responding to a question from the audience which basically asked " why so many "BAD" drawings in your magazine ? ( Remember, the customer,the paying PUBLIC thinks they are BAD, but you could argue, what the hell do THEY know ? )
Bob agrees with you wholeheartedly, and you agree Bob wholeheartedly.
I am fully aware of the explanations given, I was merely saying that from a COMMERCIAL viewpoint, UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE, most people would agree, KNOW what they are doing. I don't think you could talk them into going back to TRUDEAU'S original drawings and McGruder's original drawings , ( Because it is the right thing to do ) do you ?
I think we are talking about two different things here (1) WHAT IS TRUE ART and (2) How do you make money, lots of money in this commercial cartooning business when you have good writing. ( Some "TRUISTS" call this " Selling Out " )
Of course when you start bringing in other cartoonists styles like CHARLES SCHULZ ( PEANUTS ) and SAUL STEINBERG'S ART ( Just for starters ) from The New Yorker, to me, it is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT DISCUSSION, THEN, I COMPLETELY JUMP OVER TO YOUR SIDE, AND DEFEND IT. ( Because now, it's like apples and oranges )
Actually, I think that SIPRESS, SMALLER and other "good bad cartoonists' ( According to Mankoff ) in their minds, think or believe they are in the same league classification as a STEINBERG or SCHULZ and maybe they are( We believe what we think is the truth ). All we have is the way we believe and you cannot prove anything. To find the truth is what everyone has been searching for since Socrates, and it is elusive. All we have are opinions, and sometimes they are like elbows . . everybody's got 'em.
Ultimately,only with facts, tested by reason and logic, of course can we find the truth.
Good comment,Rod, thanks.
Question: What is the unemployment rate in the U.K. ?
P.S. Actually, I "LIKE " both Sipress AND Smaller. Commercially though, if Universal Press was handling their comics, I'm SURE they would hire someone else to do their art work, just like DOONESBURY/TRUDEAU and BOONDOCKS/ McGRUDER, Wanna bet ?
Hi, Rod:
Just wondering where you got the idea that UPS changed artists on Doonesbury. For better or worse, I've been drawing it since 1968.
This information has had widespread distribution for years from more than one reputable cartoon scource. I'm going to investigate this and ask THEM where they got the idea that Garry Trudeau has not been doing the complete strip: writing, pencilling AND inking the strip since 1968.
If this is not true, They owe Mr. Trudeau a public correction and apology and myself as well. I gladly and personally apologize if this is not true. ( and would never repeat it again )
I just hope it is not a parsing of words, the storyboard rough pencilling by Garry, the inking by someone else . . would this be considered " still drawing the strip since 1968 " ?
On the same subject, Matt Groening said to me personally in Boca Raton FL that if he was to go out today and try to get a job cartooning The Simpsons, he couldn't get a job. He just never honed his skills to the level that it needs to be. Nothing wrong with that. It needs to be as good as it can be. ( from the buyer or customer's point of view ).
Regarding BOONDOCKS, it was actually McGruder's idea to have someone else carry on the strip because when he moved to Hollywood, developing and overseeing the animation of Boondocks was too exhausting.
And Universal made sure the quality was there, slightly improved, and still keeping its integrity. Different angles and viewpoints and settings that never were there when McGruder was doing it.
nuf sed.
I didn't say I did the complete strip; I said I drew it. The first year of syndication I did all the writing, penciling and inking, but ever since, I've produced the strip in exactly the same manner: I write every word, draw very tight pencils (not "rough storyboards"), and send them to my assistant Don Carlton in Kansas City, who traces over them in ink. The operative word is trace. Another assistant handles the Sunday coloring with me.
So UPS editors didn't hire somebody to replace my "inferior" art, even if they could, which they contractually can't and by temperament, wouldn't. They are extremely respectful of their creators; the use of assistants is at our discretion, not theirs. (Aaron Magruder made his own hires as well, and not to "improve" his art.)
What's odd is that for the first decade or so of the strip I got blamed for my art -- and ever since, can't seem to get credit for it. Don and I have explained how the strip is produced countless times, but people still get it wrong. The Wall Street Journal even editorialized about Don drawing the strip (a sign of my inauthenticity, apparently) and was forced to publish a retraction.
The web, of course, has continued to keep the lie alive and well.
Hi Garry,
Thank you for clearing it up again. This proves the danger of running your mouth because you " HEARD " something, that you THOUGHT was true. This should settle it once and for all. I appreciate it and I can say I got it directly from the top. Now I can straighten somebody out when I hear it wrong again.
Thanks for explaining it and keep up the great work.
I apologize if my choice of words in any way was disparaging or insulting in any way to you or anyone . . . like Sonia Sotomayor explained it: " IT WAS A POOR CHOICE OF WORDS", RIGHT ?
Roy
Post a Comment