|
Post by bayls171 on Jan 28, 2024 3:44:48 GMT
“Those unlikable traits are merely dressing that indicate a time and place.” If only there was a snappier way of saying that… Ah yes, dates them! Bagge wasn’t writing a period piece, he was reflecting the attitudes of his time, which have changed in the last 30 years. idk, i feel like ive said this over and over but having elements that indicate a time and place don't make a work dated - plenty of actual period pieces have indicators of the time and place they're set in and it doesn't make sense to call those dated. What makes a work dated to me is whether a contemporary audience can connect with them easily, either because a work conforms to trends that end up remaining popular and/or the quality of the writing. Given the popularity of media with genuinely unlikeable characters (Sunny In Philadelphia being an obvious one off the top of my head) is still relevant and popular I struggle to see how the traits you're mentioning in Bagge's work make it dated
|
|
|
Post by bayls171 on Jan 28, 2024 3:51:45 GMT
Personally, I find Eightball’s rage towards culture (and not proud to say, but sometimes the smug attitude too) very easy to connect to. Mainstream culture is still dogshit, which is why I think it ages better. I suppose its all subjective to an extent - I just don't see that rage in contemporary discussions. The level of rage Clowes has in that early work (or that Pentimento has on these boards lol) now seems reserved for grown men complaining about batman, while people who think mainstream culture is junk mostly just dismiss the whole lot, like "yeah its shit but people like it so what are you gonna do?". I like seeing that attitude in Clowes' stuff but it feels like a total relic but again it depends where you are and who you talk to and what media you're exposed to i guess
|
|
|
Post by bayls171 on Jan 28, 2024 3:54:46 GMT
How do you Bagge-ers feel about Pete's other 4 letter title series, Yeah!? I'm the biggest Gilbert stan but those books put me to sleep. Should give them another chance. completely unremarkable imo, as a big fan of both Gilbert and Bagge. Its not interesting enough for their normal readership to care about but i don't think its fun enough for the hypothetical younger readership they may have been chasing (according to information I am half-remembering from the collected book pdf i read) to give a shit either I agree that Brian's description of it sounds way more interesting than I found it was from actually reading it
|
|
|
Post by matgreaves on Jan 28, 2024 12:15:51 GMT
“Those unlikable traits are merely dressing that indicate a time and place.” If only there was a snappier way of saying that… Ah yes, dates them! Bagge wasn’t writing a period piece, he was reflecting the attitudes of his time, which have changed in the last 30 years. idk, i feel like ive said this over and over but having elements that indicate a time and place don't make a work dated - plenty of actual period pieces have indicators of the time and place they're set in and it doesn't make sense to call those dated. What makes a work dated to me is whether a contemporary audience can connect with them easily, either because a work conforms to trends that end up remaining popular and/or the quality of the writing. Given the popularity of media with genuinely unlikeable characters (Sunny In Philadelphia being an obvious one off the top of my head) is still relevant and popular I struggle to see how the traits you're mentioning in Bagge's work make it dated Wish I just pasted in this google definition earlier and saved us all the bother haha: dated adjective 1. marked with a date. "a signed and dated painting" 2. old-fashioned. "a dated expression"
|
|
|
Post by jporcellino on Jan 28, 2024 16:09:52 GMT
BAGGE: I had, like, no shoes … [laughter] I got fired from my job because my shoes were just coming off my feet, and it’s like I had no money to buy another pair of shoes. Haha, I got told by more than one employer that my footwear was unacceptable.
|
|
|
Post by Hagbard on Jan 29, 2024 3:50:06 GMT
Clowes is a fucking trust fund baby, so fuck him. Would love to see some receipts for this. Clowes’s maternal grandfather was James Lea Cate www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/scrc/findingaids/view.php?eadid=ICU.SPCL.CLOWES; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_L._Catewww.lib.uchicago.edu/e/scrc/findingaids/view.php?eadid=ICU.SPCL.CATEJL. I wouldn’t call Clowes a trust fund baby, but he grew up in Hyde Park among U Chicago professors. Yes, his father was an auto mechanic, but Clowes certainly had the family money and prestige to allow him to enroll in the Pratt Institute for the sole purpose of a career in art, although it wasn’t as swanky then as it is now. According to the biographies I’ve read Clowes has only ever worked as an illustrator. I should add that James Lea Cate wasn’t just any professor. He was one of the most connected professors at U Chicago and one of the highest grossing fund raisers for the university. He was extremely connected with the US intelligence and military industrial complex. So who knows how much he was able to amass from that position.
|
|
|
Post by Hagbard on Jan 29, 2024 5:11:21 GMT
A serious discussion about the class of comics creators and patrons could be interesting. It seems to me that there is actually some rather stark divides, and a lot of larping. Some of the most prominent figures obviously come from money. On the other hand, comics has also siphoned a lot of money from people, so I’m reluctant to draw quick conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by pentimento on Jan 29, 2024 18:22:34 GMT
Would love to see some receipts for this. Clowes’s maternal grandfather was James Lea Cate www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/scrc/findingaids/view.php?eadid=ICU.SPCL.CLOWES; en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_L._Catewww.lib.uchicago.edu/e/scrc/findingaids/view.php?eadid=ICU.SPCL.CATEJL. I wouldn’t call Clowes a trust fund baby, but he grew up in Hyde Park among U Chicago professors. Yes, his father was an auto mechanic, but Clowes certainly had the family money and prestige to allow him to enroll in the Pratt Institute for the sole purpose of a career in art, although it wasn’t as swanky then as it is now. According to the biographies I’ve read Clowes has only ever worked as an illustrator. I should add that James Lea Cate wasn’t just any professor. He was one of the most connected professors at U Chicago and one of the highest grossing fund raisers for the university. He was extremely connected with the US intelligence and military industrial complex. So who knows how much he was able to amass from that position. My rule of thumb is this: If a person has any family members listed on Wikipedia, then that person benefits from status and privilege, whatever their monetary wealth. Frankly at this point, if your parents are anything other than working class blue collar "deplorables," you benefit. Clowes is an extraordinary cartoonist, but what I said above has been proven true, thanks to a couple posters here with better research skills than me. I do think comics may still have the lowest bar for creating work (cost of materials and cost of repro - very cheap) but there are increasingly gatekeepers for the gatekeepers. How many publishers openly state they no longer accept unsolicited submissions? How many require submissions through a fucking asshole AGENT?! Fuck all that. And look at the quality of work these fools choose to select! Of course in film and literature, it's now a hundred times worse. Seriously 95% of people in the movie business - above the line especially - either have a family history there, or come from reprehensible billionaire families (the Maras, etc.) I'm friends with several under the line folks in Hollywood, they make great livings doing interesting work, but the stories I hear would curl your toes. There is ZERO chance of a non-connected or non-moneyed person to write or direct a film in today's film biz. And Novels? Forget it! If you don't already have 500,000 social media followers, these clown companies won't even give you the courtesy of a rejection letter.
|
|