?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Page | Next Page


Now now, didn't anyone ever tell him, "there are no such things as stupid questions... just stupid people"?

Once again with the overly broad definitions! So if I want to kick back and read a book (which could be argued to be for survival, by some I guess, but most wouldn't be quite that strict) is that considered art? Yeesh. (I mean not the book itself, but my reading of it. To myself. Alone.)

And after eight pages (a good third of the chapter), we finally get to the mention of the six steps in the chapter title. Pacing, dude!

The steps are a bit weird. When "Idiom" doesn't even have "idiom" in its description, and is instead ocused on style or genre, why isn't it called one of those, for simplicity's sake? And the bit about "the new kid" and the shiny surface... bitter, much? :p

I'd also suggest that not every creation follows those six steps as he claims, given that people work in different ways, for different purposes! I mean, like steps 3, 4, 5, and 6 might all be blurred together in a work that someone doesn't plan out, but just creates. But again, maybe I'm being needlessly picky. And he also seems to be using it more for a person's art in general so... I dunno. He has some good points, but he also seems to be trying to shoehorn life experience into a certain structure that may or may not work for all cases and lives.

"Hostility, rejection, and poverty are also possible, of course." Heh. And ouch.

Anyhow, please discuss!


Next week, the penultimate chapter! Which sounds just so dramatic. See the schedule! For the whole two entries left for this book...

Comments

khedron
Sep. 22nd, 2010 06:40 am (UTC)
I don't like his describing them as "steps", because he immediately goes into great detail about how people do them out of order. When he says they're arranged in concentric layers from most to least fundamental, I'll more or less agree with that.

The steps are a bit weird. When "Idiom" doesn't even have "idiom" in its description, and is instead ocused on style or genre, why isn't it called one of those, for simplicity's sake?

Well, he calls it "the vocabulary of styles or gestures or subject matter". That goes fairly well with this set of definitions, don't you think? Especially the "artistic style" one.

He has some good points, but he also seems to be trying to shoehorn life experience into a certain structure that may or may not work for all cases and lives.

That seems like it's probably fair. I've been thinking that the entire book comes out of a need to defend what he likes (comics) by giving it a theoretical basis, so he can say "See, there's something to this! And it's art!"

Once again with the overly broad definitions! So if I want to kick back and read a book (which could be argued to be for survival, by some I guess, but most wouldn't be quite that strict) is that considered art? Yeesh. (I mean not the book itself, but my reading of it. To myself. Alone.)

All his cavemen are producing, not consuming - dancing, drawing, making music. If one of them is just watching the others, he doesn't mention it. He would definitely argue that you're engaged in the process of art; I don't know if he'd try to justify that by saying that the words in the book alone don't stand, it's the interaction with the reader that makes the art happen.


(I did like his even-handedness in the gender assignments.)

stormfeather
Sep. 22nd, 2010 10:12 pm (UTC)
That seems like it's probably fair. I've been thinking that the entire book comes out of a need to defend what he likes (comics) by giving it a theoretical basis, so he can say "See, there's something to this! And it's art!"

Yeah, I've gotten that vibe as well. Which isn't to say I don't empathize with his viewpoint, but it does seem to color the book at times.

And yeah, he could maybe argue that reading a book was "taking part in" art, but I still say his definition is too broad and sweeping. But again, that's probably colored by his (suspected) goal.