Comic Book Resources

I get the point you’re going for, but i still disagree with your criticisms of the first 3 and totally agree with the criticisms of the last one.

I get the point you’re going for, but i still disagree with your criticisms of the first 3 and totally agree with the criticisms of the last one.

You obviously don’t get the point he was going for considering that his “criticisms” were entirely facetious.

I get the point you’re going for, but i still disagree with your criticisms of the first 3 and totally agree with the criticisms of the last one.

Why, though?

You obviously don’t get the point he was going for considering that his “criticisms” were entirely facetious.

Um, no, I do get the point. That the real criticisms of the last picture are as silly as his facetious ones for the first couple. If I didn’t realize they were supposed to be facetious, there’d be nothing to “get,” it would just be a series of straightforward criticisms by Brian.

I’m not sure what this is in response to.

Why, though?

I just think it’s trying way too hard to make a point, and as a result ends up being as subtle as a jackhammer or a heart attack. “Just in case the reader can’t get what I;m going for, let me make the white guys extra white, and almost indistinguishable from each other, and make the black guy extra chocolatey.” Shows very little faith in the reader in my opinion. Plus I felt zero effort was put into distinguishing the white presidents from each other, they all look almost exactly the same features-wise with the exceptions of some really obvious ones like Ike and Carter, like all he cared about was making sure they looked really, REALLY white and not much else. Decent job on the Obama. Not saying it is crap as Brian jokes, it’s actually a decent idea, but I imagine it could have been much better executed by another artist, or by this one if he put more care into it. Maybe it was a rush job.

All Crap! But in the case of Superman´s logo, there´s an explanation: “The photonucleic effect is a very specialized astronomical phenomenon”. Even under a yellow sun and being obsessed by Jessica Alba, Frank Miller would never betray his birthright.

Yeah, but, you know…it actually is kind of crap that Miller had a cover concept that absolutely requires us to be able to identify the figures as Superman and Batman while simultaneously making it impossible for us to do so, so he has to cheat on his own idea to make it work. He could have paused at the cover rough stage and realized this one wasn’t going to work, and kept trying to come up with a cover pose where the other figure would be recognizable as Superman in silhouette. Instead he said “Eh, good enough” and let it go.

“A Few Examples of Awful Drawings?”
This is one example of an awfully lame, unintelligent column.

“This is one example of an awfully lame, unintelligent column.”

Really? Then you’ve missed the point. Criticisms of the Presidents piece ignore the concept of “artistic license used to make a point” – given that these criticisms were made by comics fans on this blog, Brian has merely provided classic examples of the concept, to show anyone who doesn’t get it (possibly out of some misguided loyalty to the GOP or downright racism) that they’re wrong, and possibly retarded.

I do think they’re all bad drawings.

It´s only because of John Byrne that the Fantastic Four and, most important, Invisible Girl, are what they are today. Byrne´s Fantastic Four is the real inspiration to The Uberpopular The Incredibles movie, now in comics by the Power of Waid! Invisible Girl becomes Invisible Woman in the hands of John Byrne! If you want to talk abaut crap in Fantastic Four, think about that crossover with Superman, by Dan Jurgens. Beautifull story, but – the ART is crap.

Plus I felt zero effort was put into distinguishing the white presidents from each other, they all look almost exactly the same features-wise with the exceptions of some really obvious ones like Ike and Carter, like all he cared about was making sure they looked really, REALLY white and not much else.

Honestly, I don’t think that kind of detail has any bearing on the cartoon’s point. In fact, he could have gone an even lazier route, I think, and just had 43 pure white (no flesh tone) stick-figure-type bubble heads and one black one, and the cartoon would work just as well.

If the argument is that the point itself is too on the nose, no matter how it’s presented, I could understand (though disagree with) that. But I don’t think making the individual hair colors and skin tones more accurate would mitigate that.

The last one is awful because its meant as a joke but the joke is not funny or clever. HEY GUYS! DIDJA KNOW OBAMA IS BLACK WHEREAS, IN CONTRAST, NONE OF THE OTHER PRESIDENTS WERE?!

It’s so not meant as a joke. It’s making a point that America has turned a corner and that a middle-aged white guy is not your president for the first time ever. Where’s the humour in that? It’s a striking image.

Yeah, I think part of the thing is it only uses three colors, so it’s that much more striking than it would be if all the hair was the exact right shade of sandy brown or whatever. Just like it’s striking to note that for the first time ever a white guy isn’t America’s president.

I’ve only got one problem with this joke… Same problem I have with calling Lewis Hamilton (from Formula One) Black…

Neither of them are black…

They are something more… People of mixed heritage. In both cases, they have black fathers and white mothers.

Why can’t people applaud the mixing of races rather than using polar labelling??

Why is it striking? This observation has been made a million times before. It’s a hoary point.

I agree that the only way for the artist to convey his meaning was to emphasize the white-ness of previous presidents otherwise his picture would just be an ordinary table of presidents. Perhaps, as T says, he could’ve given the reader some credit and not taken if that far though. But that’s not my gripe. I guess its that I don’t see what the big deal is about having a black president. To me, he’s just another president, like all those that came before him. It would be a much bigger deal if he was the first noncapitalist president or the first nonChristian or first independent party president, because these things are much more relevant to his job. Stressing that he’s the first Black president is like stressing he’s the thinnest president or the tallest. It’s unimportant, and the more you call attention to something like that, the more people will believe its a real difference.

Maybe what I’m saying here is unclear, but for example, I was talking to a girl who said she was gonna vote for Obama because it was about time this country had a black president. That’s such an incredibly dumb and racist reason to vote for somebody. Nevermind his policy, what difference does that make? I wanna see this historical moment so I’m gonna vote for him even if his policy is to turn my hometown into a nuclear test site.

So Cliff’s Notes:
1) This cartoon’s point is very unoriginal
2) This cartoon’s point treats skin color as something significant, and I think doing that leads to problems

America is a country that, less than 50 years ago, denied basic human rights to people of Obama’s color in certain states. You don’t think that the progress made in that time is significant? It’s not that Obama is the first black president, and that it’s all BLACK BLACK BLACK, more that America has finally overcome this stumbling block in electing a qualified man to the position of President.

Can someone show me where the cartoon has been done before if it’s so unoriginal?

Logo, shmogo. Those DARK KNIGHT figures are *wretched*, especially Superman. I have no idea when this thing came out, but for just how many years has Miller been coasting?

The cartoon’s point isn’t just that Barack Obama is black and every other president is white. That’s just a small part of the greater whole and would be puerile and obvious if that was the cartoon’s main them…but I don’t think it was. There have been criticisms that the other presidents were drawn to similar. The cartoonist did that on purpose! He’s trying to illustrate that the election of Obama (in the cartoonist’s eyes) is a drastic break from the business-as-usual brand of politics. Obama represents a change…not just in skin color, but perhaps in governmental philosophy. The cartoonist is expressing that the election is a stark contrast from everything that has happened before in America. For instance, can you name the 26th president off the top of your head? Probably not, but everyone will remember Obama being our nation’s 44th president for years to come. THAT is the main crux of the piece, and why I think Brian’s column is apt in this case.

Really? Then you’ve missed the point.

Geez, the second time “You don’t get this column” has come up in response to criticism. It’s not that hard to get, it’s sarcasm. Some of us just don’t agree with this column. It’s possible to get this column yet still disagree with it.

I agree with T on this one.

It’s a powerful illustration of what it really means for the US to have its first black president, but coloring in Obama’s hair without even an attempt at coloring in the hair on any of the other presidents is disingenuous and lazy.

As someone pointed out in the original post, the way Obama looks, it would have been just as appropriate to leave his hair white, which would have cut out the one criticism you could make for the cartoon.

To be fair, that Miller cover really IS awful. It looks like two sacks of potatoes getting ready to square off.

Those DARK KNIGHT figures are *wretched*, especially Superman.

Damn – I have no idea who’s being sarcastic and who isn’t any more

I’ve only got one problem with this joke… Same problem I have with calling Lewis Hamilton (from Formula One) Black…

Why can’t people applaud the mixing of races rather than using polar labelling??

well, Blackjak… MOST “African-Americans” are actually of “mixed heritage” somewhere down the line when you get right down to it… so who then IS “Black”?

besides, i don’t see how that problem could be applied to this joke… the cartoon never SAID that Obama was “Black”… it illustrates that he appears to be phenotypically different from all the preceding presidents… which he IS, regardless of the race of his mother or father.

so i don’t quite get your point here.

and, of yeah… i agree that the Frank Miller cover really IS terrible. i never liked any of the art in TDK, though.

hah, funny. i was expecting some liefeld bashing or something of that nature…not miller/ditko/kirby

lol

“For instance, can you name the 26th president off the top of your head?”
Theodore Roosevelt.

What?

EM

To Comb & razor: You just made my point. Who IS “Black”? Who IS “White”? Why should we care??? If you’re not careful (and I don’t mean you specifically) you end up going down the old Apartheid South African regime route. Classifying everyone in three categories, Whites, Blacks and Coloureds… Which in their “ideal” minds meant that Obama (and anyone else of mixed heritage) would be called “Coloured”… Some of the racial classifications were so complex, due to the unmentionable inter-breeding that inevitably occurred, that sometimes just for having large lips, you could be classified as Black or Coloured… Unless your parents had certain political clout, in which case, a few Rand in the right direction would get you “white” papers even if you had a creamy-coffee complexion…
My personal view is colours like white and black should be used to describe colours of ink or light… not people.
Racists come from any background, race or creed. It can be intentional racism or unintentional. I judge people on how they treat others, not the colour of their skin… Particularly when you consider that certain mediterranean skin types can darken so much in the sun that they would make someone of Barack Obama’s skin type look anaemic…

Why should we classify anyone by how much melanin they have? That just keeps bringing back the same problems again and again…

I would hope that by having someone who has both “white” and “black” heritage in the White House, America can finally draw a line on the past and start to move forward. And finally be a true example of democracy and unity for the world, after years of institutional racism and vote-rigging…

Oh, and in the FF cover… if they are running out of air, why is Johnny burning up even more of it?? In fact why is he on fire at all if Ben’s finding it hard to breathe?

Blackjak -

in theory, i agree with you… it would be great if we could just forget all this race stuff and let people be people… but it’s unlikely to happen. as humans, it’s natural for us to categorize each other according to skin color, hair color, eye color, age, body type, national origin, etc. i don’t know if that hard-wiring can ever be completely undone… but i’ve got nothing against trying!

People, can’t we all just agree that Chester A. Arthur had the dopest mustache of any US president in history and leave it at that?

Yeah, but, you know…it actually is kind of crap that Miller had a cover concept that absolutely requires us to be able to identify the figures as Superman and Batman while simultaneously making it impossible for us to do so, so he has to cheat on his own idea to make it work. He could have paused at the cover rough stage and realized this one wasn’t going to work, and kept trying to come up with a cover pose where the other figure would be recognizable as Superman in silhouette. Instead he said “Eh, good enough” and let it go.

Complaining about the shiny Superman logo on that cover is like complaining that classic Robin didn’t wear pants… they’re both complaints against specific Comic-book visual conventions that for some reason utterly ignore OTHER ridiculous visual conventions that are used even more frequently, without making any sense either. Most “modern” comic book fans roll their eyes sarcastically at the idea of a bare-legged speedo-wearing Robin, while giving a free pass for other silly conventions – such as the laughable “underwear-on-the-outside” that Superman, Batman, Captain America and most other superheroes use, or the sex-thongs that most superheroines wear into battle. And then we have this strange complaint about Superman’s glowing logo on that Miller cover, with no mention of Batman’s own glow-in-the-dark eyes on the exact same cover.

What’s next? Shall we complain that Spider-Man frequently swings on webs that can’t realistically be attached to anything (like when he swings by the Empire State Building or Statue of Liberty)? Shall we complain that non-superpowered heroes like Nightwing shouldn’t be physically able to cross town leaping from rooftop to rooftop? Shall we complain that the Bruce Banner pants should get totally ripped to shreds whenever he becomes the Hulk, repeatedly exposing his gamma-enhanced ass to the world? Which traditional superhero cliches shall we complain about today?

I love the people explaining what Brian was doing on this thread, as if sarcasm is something people never encountered on their childhood playgrounds. If people don’t think it’s hilarious and brilliant snark, it must be because they just don’t see what he did there.

Brian’s actual content in this post neither grabs me nor bugs me, because it seems to be responding to (or mocking, anyway) a “controversy” that I missed entirely because I glanced at the initial cartoon when it was posted, shrugged and moved on to other post-election stuff that I was much more interested in.

But the response in comments reminds me a lot of a feature in the latest New Yorker where they reprinted a lot of cartoons that people didn’t find funny the first time around along, with a multiple-choice quiz of explanations why the cartoon is funny. Because clearly if people didn’t think they were hilarious, it must be because they just didn’t get it. But of course the right answers were pretty obvious and didn’t make the cartoons any funnier.

Now It´s perfect clear. Only one is black! See the conection: Rachael Leight Cook! – The Ultimates. Rosario Dawson! – Sin City. Parker Posey! – What was the name of that movie, anyway…? “Thumbs Up” – Brian was right all along. Blame either Josch, Joss, or John Hughes.

Interesting — I’ve always kind of liked that Dark Knight cover, but it’s true that without that glowing S-shield I might have guessed Robo-Batman was bringing his big guns to a gorilla knife fight.

Actually, if someone thinks the cartoon would be more effective by being less exaggerated and more accurate, they ARE missing the point.

The point is not about accurate re-creations of presidential headshots. It’s about highlighting the major shift that occured when Obama was elected. And major shifts are represented in major ways.

Formers Mets reliever, Bob Apodaca everybody…putting it all in perspective.

Thank you.

That’s an interesting construction, though, Apodaca. If someone holds a different opinion about the cartoon’s impact than you do — in this case “thinks the cartoon would be more effective by being less exaggerated and more accurate” — it means that they do not have or do not understand the same information that you possess and comprehend.

Do you actually believe that with the same body of information, and both comprehending that information, different people can’t come to different aesthetic judgments about a drawing?

wow, so comic book boards really will argue about ANYTHING.

“The other 43 presidents didn’t all have white hair!”

It’s worse than that. Where are their bodies!!?! Are we honestly supposed to believe that America has been governed by a succession of severed heads!?!? What rubbish.

Something different occured to me… What if Hillary Clinton had won the run-off and the election?? Would we have had 43 pairs of trousers then a skirt? Or genitalia?

By the way… Could Spider-man actually glide with his flying-fox style wings? or were they purely for show? in which case, awful costume-design!! urggh!

Can you really prove that we HAVEN’T been governed by severed heads all this time, Dan? Or do you just believe everything the media tells you?

Why do you have trouble differentiating between white people, T.? Is it because we all look alike to you?

“That’s an interesting construction, though, Apodaca. If someone holds a different opinion about the cartoon’s impact than you do — in this case “thinks the cartoon would be more effective by being less exaggerated and more accurate” — it means that they do not have or do not understand the same information that you possess and comprehend.

Do you actually believe that with the same body of information, and both comprehending that information, different people can’t come to different aesthetic judgments about a drawing?”

Well, see, that’s the thing. I’m not arguing impact, I’m arguing intent. It seems to me that the people who think more accuracy in the cartoon would make it more effective also think that the message of the cartoon is “This guy looks totally different from all the other guys.”

But, in my opinion (and though I hate using that qualifier, I do want to make it clear that I’m aware we’re all just posting assumptions about artistic intent, and any of us could be totally wrong), the message of the cartoon relates to the drastic rise in voter turnout levels, the major shift in political ideology that comes with Obama’s election, and the example it sets for a potential new direction of America living up to its rhetoric and (cliched as it is to say, at this point) instilling hope in its citizenry.

The point is to show that this is a BIG DEAL. And in order for that message to come across most effectively, cartoonists use extremes. If the differences are more subtle (regardless of accuracy), the message is muddied. “He’s totally different from those other guys, except for the ones who have a similar hair color, or were slightly closer in skin tone than the others.” Once you start throwing in qualifiers, the impact of the cartoon is lessened.

That’s why, when people say they think it would be better if it were more photo-accurate, I say that I think they don’t actually understand the cartoon.

It’s not “You’re dumb.” It’s “You’re missing something.”

these facetious criticisms sound an awful lot like what I read from the Buy Pile, only that guy doesn’t seem to be kidding. Kind of sad.

You’re all a bunch of racists.

It’s not “You’re dumb.” It’s “You’re missing something.”

But Dan, you know that over the last eight years, people have been conditioned to only see the issues as black or white!

***Apodaca writes***
But, in my opinion (and though I hate using that qualifier, I do want to make it clear that I’m aware we’re all just posting assumptions about artistic intent, and any of us could be totally wrong), the message of the cartoon relates to the drastic rise in voter turnout levels, the major shift in political ideology that comes with Obama’s election, and the example it sets for a potential new direction of America living up to its rhetoric and (cliched as it is to say, at this point) instilling hope in its citizenry.

The point is to show that this is a BIG DEAL. And in order for that message to come across most effectively, cartoonists use extremes. If the differences are more subtle (regardless of accuracy), the message is muddied. “He’s totally different from those other guys, except for the ones who have a similar hair color, or were slightly closer in skin tone than the others.” Once you start throwing in qualifiers, the impact of the cartoon is lessened.
***********

Suppose you were the artist and you had the intent described here. You wanted to convey that this election was a big deal, huge voter turnout, Obama instills hope, etc. And suppose you also had the same idea to use the table of presidents as your theme. Don’t you think your intent would be better conveyed by having Obama be giant compared to all the other presidents in the table or by having him surrounded a mystical glow while coloring the others in grays or something? In this cartoon, literally the only difference between Obama and the other presidents is color.

I’m not saying that what you said wasn’t the artist intention; as you said, we’re just guessing at it. But if it was his intent, I think he could’ve done a much better job conveying it.

I love it. Thank you for pointing out how ridiculous it is for people to complain about artistic license. Is it that people honestly don’t get the point of the exaggeration? Or are they just being petty and/or disingenuous?

“Don’t you think your intent would be better conveyed by having Obama be giant compared to all the other presidents in the table or by having him surrounded a mystical glow while coloring the others in grays or something? In this cartoon, literally the only difference between Obama and the other presidents is color.”

No, I actually don’t think that either of those ideas would be more effective. The first is presumptuous. It speaks more to his career as president, which hasn’t even begun yet. The second is just a more elaborate and obvious style of the cartoon that we have above. In political cartooning, the most effective method is to be simple and clean.

I think that what I’m basically saying is that the artist is better at creating a concept for a political cartoon than you are. And you’re saying the opposite.

Which isn’t to say that there’s anything implicitly wrong with you thinking you know better. But you’re setting yourself up to be the subject of criticism, rather than the piece of art. That’s the nature of being a critic. Once you publish, you’re part of the package.

So when someone like me is arguing that the piece is effective as is, and you say it would be more effective if done the way you imagine, the discussion becomes about whether or not I think you could convey the message more effectively. And if your idea of a more effective form for the cartoon doesn’t communicate the point in the same way I believe the original does, I’m left to assume that you got a different message from the piece than I did. And of course (as we all do about ourselves), I believe that my interpretation is the correct one.

Which leaves me in the position of saying something along the lines of “You didn’t get it.” Because you clearly got a different “it” than I did.

“The second is just a more elaborate and obvious style of the cartoon that we have above.”

It really isn’t though. The cartoon, as is, is a picture of a bland looking black man in the lower right hand corner of a sequence of bland looking white men. In the artists picture, the distinction between Obama and the other presidents is a single neutral difference, its just skin color. He’s even wearing the same white suit as everyone else, which serves, to me anyway, to suggest that he’s not very different from the other presidents. If he were glowing or something like that, it portrays a positive difference, as its typical to associate luminance with positive things.

I know we’re punching brick walls here, as I will always dislike this cartoon and you will always like it. I’m not an artist at all, so it seems reasonable that my idea for modifying the cartoon might be awful from an artistic standpoint, tacky or whatever, However, I am a mathematician and I am confident that, artistic defects aside, a glowing Obama would much more clearly and logically convey that Obama instills hope than the current picture. In other words, more people would “get it”. And maybe not so much for art gallery art, but for poltical cartoons, “getting it” is important, no?

I don’t think subtlety is beyond my grasp. But to me, the only logical inference that can be drawn from the picture as it stands is that Obama is black and other presidents were not. In that sense, maybe I don’t “get it”

This reminds me of Ezra Pound, reviewing films –
Casablanca – Filth. The director should be shot.
It’s A Wonderful Life – Filth and propaganda.
Wizard of Oz – Utter filth.

Martin Van Buren is so attractive. VB Boys for life!

I get it… Obama is black,lol.

Why are movies commenting on the posts?

Isn’t the point of the cartoon that Obama’s election is another false dawn, that ultimately, the only difference between Obama and the rest is the colour of his skin?

Bernard: It SHOULD be, but it isn’t.

That’s why a lot of people find it offensive.

For all the talk about how people should not care what color a person is, just their capability to do the job, it was always the Obama supporters (including the majority of the media, which showed a bias in his favor from almost day one) that were constantly harping on the fact that he was a man of color.

My personal decision on who to vote for came from listening to the candidates’ own words, and looking at their actions, not skin color or veteran status. And having a Republican that wouldn’t really stand up for himself or really go after his opponent’s flaws, and a Democrat whose personal opinions and most ardent followers reminded me more of the “mandate for change” experienced in 1917 Russia (if not 1933 Germany), pushed me in the direction of the third party candidates.

Oh for fuck’s sake.

The thing is, this Obama’s skin color IS a huge deal. America is, what, 13% black, 50% female, with large Hispanic, Asian, Native American populations…but Obama’s the first president who isn’t a white man. That NEEDS reminding, and I don’t find the message offensive at all. Progress doesn’t happen by ignoring issues like race.

“The other 43 presidents didn’t all have white hair!”

And somehow at least half of them look kind of like John Madden. Especially, surprisingly, Jimmy Carter.

Honestly, TDK was pretty ugly.

Wow, is anyone else detecting some sexual tension? Seriously you two, just get a room all ready.