R.Crumb
I saw his documentary about his life, Crumb. I have seen his comics. I kind of.. don't get it. Other than him being expressive of himself in his comics, and how risque the images and suggestions, I don't see the big deal. Maybe that is the only big deal. But even that, I don't see as much of a deal. Did he further the art of comics? Is that it? Did he elevate comics into a socially relevent medium for expression and consciousness raising?
I don't find his comics to be very deep. Just the candid ideas of a guy with a few obsessions. I find most of them to be repulsive. I guess maybe I'm just a prude. I can't even imagine why they would be considered so revolutionary when they don't appear to me to say anything your average teenage boy wouldn't say. Or is it that he was bold enough to say it, and draw it, and that was revolutionary enough?
What is your opinion of R. Crumb and his art work, his comics? Why were they so relevant? Why are they still considered relevant?
He challenged the ideals of traditional society and the hippies, with a kind of nihilism, an honest admition of being self centered. I guess that's it? He was amusing? Meh? He drew his insecurities and obsessions. Mostly I'm disgusted by his comics.
[QUOTE=Lazlosdead]They were revelant because they were so ordinary.
Not superheroes or Ziggy, just normal stuff.[/QUOTE]
But why was that so special?
this is more along the lines of comics and stuff..
[IMG]http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/3760/rosinhighminsig3jo.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Maddetchke Malorkus]But why was that so special?[/QUOTE]
Because at the time everyone was drawing superheroes and Ziggy.
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/Lazlosdead/completeLazloSig.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Maddetchke Malorkus]But why was that so special?[/QUOTE]
It isn't. To paraphrase Angie Dickenson in Wild Palms: "You could be ordinary and that is most horrble thing in the world."
The documentary was interesting as a study in fringe life and obsessiveness, but his comics, like Pekar's, inspire me in no way.
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
[QUOTE=Minuet]this is more along the lines of comics and stuff..[/QUOTE]
we could move it.
[QUOTE=Lazlosdead]Because at the time everyone was drawing superheroes and Ziggy.[/QUOTE]
I guess I mean, why did he get so famous for it? Weren't teenagers drawing that kind of thing on their notebooks already?
You can't understand, woman.
[QUOTE=Maddetchke Malorkus]I guess I mean, why did he get so famous for it? Weren't teenagers drawing that kind of thing on their notebooks already?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but he drew them really well I guess.
I was here. Then I wasn't. Then I was again.
[QUOTE=franc tireur]You can't understand, woman.[/QUOTE]
That's the answer I was looking for. It's just like Kerouac's On the Road.
I saw a documentry not too long ago myself on R. Crumb.
I've been drawing a Graphic Short Story for the last 24 hours and I've been thinkning about Crumb. His stuff was groundbreaking for his era. I like that he took pictures of mundane stuff like telephone poles. So he'd have it for reference material.
I did the same thing yesterday and now have a great drawing of transformers and a telephone pole.
I like the style and look of his work, but I haven't read much, if any of it.
Oh this reminds me.
I wanted to go to the comic book shop and steal ideas. (<~~~~~Fucking nerd!)
"well she's either a cruel horny bitch or she might actually like you." - audreythirteen
Okay, so it was realism! Like the appeal of realism in movies.
and being vulgar.
"well she's either a cruel horny bitch or she might actually like you." - audreythirteen
I like Crumb's work. Particularly the post 60s stuff which began to evolve into these biting and often hilariously bizarre satires of life around him. If his work had never moved on from hippies and hallucinations he wouldn't be as reverred in the field.
Robert Crumb is and was VERY relevant to the world of art, not just comics. His comics--however the content is to be taken--are done very sincerely and seriously. He DOES produce art so quickly that much has little conscious thought intentionally placed in it, but his work is all the more interpretive and subjective (much like Kerouac)--and difficult for some to even recognize as "art", thusly.
As far as the film--[B]Crumb[/B]--I always saw it as more so a film about obsession and the fine line between insanity and creativity. His brothers and mother show that though Robert may be odd, had he not found and CONTINUED to use his outlet--his art--then he would more than likely have ended up like the brothers, oddball eccentrics that do things in their lives, but things of little to no consequence other than to themselves--and this feeds their eccentricities and insanities. I also believe the film is centered on Charles, with the opening lines from Robert expressing how if he couldn't draw he'd kill himself (adding that sometimes drawing, paradoxically, makes him WANT to kill himself), then says how his brother Charles got him into comics. Later, he mentions how Charles was the better artist of the brothers, but when shown, Charles has accepted his insanity and become a recluse that doesn't draw anymore and rereads the same books over and over while living with their crazed mother. The film's end is overshadowed by the placecard revelations of how Robert and family move to France, Maxon still lives in San Francisco, that the Crumb sisters refused to be in the documentary (filmed over an eight year span by friend Terry Zwigoff that went on to direct [B]GhostWorld[/B], to which Robert donated some of his art to be used in scenes, and his daughter Sofie--"the only female I've ever loved"--who is a child in [B]Crumb[/B], drew all the artwork for Thora Birch's character), and that Charles committed suicide shortly after the interview. So for the film, I think it is about Robert's survival through art--however abrasive or "childish"--versus the fates of his brothers, Charles being the "best" in their youth, but overcome with insanity, a fate Robert avoids through his art. Thus the title relates to the family, the brothers Crumb, instead of being titled "R. Crumb", or so.
Here are two links--the first to the "A Short History of America"-montage that appears in the film shows that Robert does a lot more than just comics, while the second is to the best Crumb site out there (the first link is from inside this one):
[url]http://www.crumbmuseum.com/history1.html[/url]
[url]http://www.crumbmuseum.com/[/url]
Also, if it can be located, R. Crumb illustrated several small books a few years ago, one on the life of Kafka and another on Charles Bukowski. Well worth finding. Or I could send one a scanned copy, if it wasn't illegal...
I dig Crumb, but if I were to try and express why I think he is or was relevant, I don't know...
...I do think the underlying social commentary in his comics are pretty fucking harsh, so if that's your bag, then yea, pretty fucking relevant...but I don't know, it's a good question...he certainly has had an effect on many people, his stuff might even still be shaping shit now...so yea, relevant, but whether or not he's anymore relevant than some guy who does some crazy-ass shit that just happens to be dug by WAY too many people, I don't know...am I making any sense?!
[QUOTE=succotash moon]I dig Crumb, but if I were to try and express why I think he is or was relevant, I don't know...
...so yea, relevant, but whether or not he's anymore relevant than some guy who does some crazy-ass shit that just happens to be dug by WAY too many people, I don't know...am I making any sense?! [/QUOTE]
Yeah. You're making sense. Crumb does have a little following of people that know the name and know he does some fuck-up shit and all, but any one that's checked out his career AND appreciate him as an artist will still be bothered by [I]a lot[/I] of his work--even he is. He's a misogynist, a racist, et cetera, and unapologetic. He moves to France to escape the "consumer culture" of modern America—he's pretentious. But he's also a distinct voice—albeit a visual voice—that came of age artistically in the faux-happy-Sixties, and his work derided the culture then and from then on. He's relevant, but only to those that look beyond the surface (in essence, the term "comic book artist"). Still I understand how easy it would be to dislike him and his work. Very easy...
i like that guy that does the Red Meat comics, and a few political comics (Get You War On being my favorite), other than them, I don't know. Harvey Pekar's comics don't interest me, but American Splendor was interesting. Maybe R. Crumb and his documentary would be the same thing.
"my new fighting technique is unstoppable"" is what internet was created for.
[QUOTE=alex cassun]i like that guy that does the Red Meat comics, and a few political comics (Get You War On being my favorite), other than them, I don't know. Harvey Pekar's comics don't interest me, but American Splendor was interesting. Maybe R. Crumb and his documentary would be the same thing.[/QUOTE]
The documentary is fascinating, like Ralph said, it's not just about him and his comics. It's about his family. They are some class act weirdos. It's very interesting, and funny. I enjoyed it although I don't enjoy his comics.
[QUOTE=Mr. Brown]"my new fighting technique is unstoppable"" is what internet was created for.[/QUOTE]
maybe, i just don't understand wtf is going on.
for anyone that does like his work, look for this book
[IMG]http://bookweb.kinokuniya.co.jp/bimgdata/FC1840461225.JPG[/IMG]
those two weirdos go great together
[QUOTE=karbunkle]for anyone that does like his work, look for this book
[IMG]http://bookweb.kinokuniya.co.jp/bimgdata/FC1840461225.JPG[/IMG]
those two weirdos go great together[/QUOTE]
That's it!
OR refer to my post where I offerred to scan it and send it to someone ("were it not illegal"... but like I care about legalities...). It's a very cool little illustrated bio. As is the Bukowski one.
They were revelant because they were so ordinary.
Not superheroes or Ziggy, just normal stuff.
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/Lazlosdead/completeLazloSig.jpg[/IMG]