CBR: When Words Collide - Oct 3, 2011

[CBR News]

Tim runs through a week of reading with discussions about Kate Beaton, Marv Wolfman, George Perez, Hamlet, Craig Thompson, Frank Miller and the Trouble with Intent.


Full article here.

[Lackshmana]

"Others, though, are quick to point to Miller's own increasingly right-wing comments online as an automatic token of intent toward creating an artifact of hate."

I find any discussion of Miller or his work nowadays hinges on this idea.

I haven't had the opportunity to read Holy Terror yey, so I can't speak to its contents but...

This always comes off to me as, "When Frank Miller was attacking Republicans and Catholics, I just assumed his Libertarian beliefs were just code for Cool Guy Democrat. But now that he is a big proponent for the war on terror, I have decided that Libertarian is actually code for Secret Conservative Racist Tea Bagger!"

Its like the way some people look at everything President Obama says and does then decide it means he must be a Secret Muslim, as though that were an actual thing.

[ian33407]

I...uh..will have to re-read one or two things, but..thanks for the lesson.
Really.

[rstay]

I see your point about moralism in judging art, but I think it's problematic to completely separate moral judgments from artistic ones. The great 20th century example of this point is Leni Riefenstahl. As impressive as her films can be, how can we possible separate them from their intent to bolster Hitler's Germany? Yes, I said intent. It's one thing to acknowledge Riefenstahl's artistic ability; it seems a completely different matter (to me) to ignore the intent and impact of her art. In the end, she is a scoundrel (and not in some simplistic, mustache twirling way), and the value of her contribution to film is tainted. (One could say the same about Heidigger's philosophy--not Nietzsche, however; it's anachronistic to accuse him of being a Nazi.)

[jmyoung]

I see your point about moralism in judging art, but I think it's problematic to completely separate moral judgments from artistic ones. The great 20th century example of this point is Leni Riefenstahl. As impressive as her films can be, how can we possible separate them from their intent to bolster Hitler's Germany?

I would say you can separate your judgment of the artwork from the intent. It doesn't mean you have to encourage or cannot discourage people from supporting the artist. You can remind people of the context of a work. If there's any chance for the author or the author's evil cause to make money off a work you can actively express that the public should not take any action to compensate the creator.

Birth of a Nation is considered a classic piece of early cinema, although its heroes were KKK members.

[chastmastr]

I'm not quite in the same camp, I think--I do believe morality (without the rather scary approach to it many Puritanically-minded people have in our day) and metaphysics are important to a story (I'm a huge fan of Lewis' An Experiment in Criticism)--but it is very cool to see someone approaching comics this way.

[MarkSullivan]

This is one of the most intelligent comic book columns I've ever read. Kind of took me by surprise, and I enjoyed that feeling. I agree that using authorial intent as the basis for criticism is a slippery slope at best. Usually you can't know for certain, and even if you do, the work still stands or falls on its own. It certainly is hard to ignore an intent that is clearly established at the outset, like the Nazi propaganda mentioned by another poster. But I'd still try really hard to look at the work as objectively as I could, if I were critiquing it.



My blog: mrvertigocomics.wordpress.com