tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post6923591756214896266..comments2024-03-09T04:06:47.712-05:00Comments on Abstract Comics: The Blog: More on Ditko and abstractionAndrei Molotiuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17400106944822618816noreply@blogger.comBlogger48125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-34498009325107524762010-03-13T18:05:32.706-05:002010-03-13T18:05:32.706-05:00This really wants to be submitted to the Ditkomani...This really wants to be submitted to the Ditkomania Fanzine, would be a great article to see in print. It does exactly what Ditko always wanted, it discusses the merits of Ditkos work, not Ditko the person.Tiniebrashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00428094205783750819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-73285880106778884072010-01-29T00:00:50.744-05:002010-01-29T00:00:50.744-05:00I think we all need to remember that an intellectu...I think we all need to remember that an intellectual argument is not a fight. To tell someone you disagree is not an insult but rather the highest form of respect you can give a thinking person. When someone disagrees with you that means they are taking you seriously as a thinking person. We only act like we agree with people when we think they are too dumb to talk to or we are too lazy/busy to think about it. <br /><br />I might have misread the situation but I read alot of stuff on here about whether or not someone is combative or defensive or whatever. I guess I just think we shouldn't take this so personally and I know I want to know what people think, especially if they disagree with me.<br /><br />I'm not big on the academic speak, but i've found this blog to be more stimulating than my entire career in art school. And, I really learn alot from you guys so I say keep talking, say whatever you want and we'll all be better off, at least I will be.Melvin Mannheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10162579553535511024noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-20333492235525768082010-01-27T01:43:49.333-05:002010-01-27T01:43:49.333-05:00Thanks for your reply, Charles, and I'm glad y...Thanks for your reply, Charles, and I'm glad you're back! I hope that, when you read the Miller piece, you don't think I'm caricaturing your position when I say "and I know Charles H. will rebel against this..." <br /><br />I see your point, but I wonder if our different emphases don't come from different temperaments. For example, I really wasn't able to enjoy Kirby's "Fantastic Four" until I tried to read it quickly, skipping most of Stan Lee's captions and just skimming the word balloons, to really get the visual flow of the story. Only then did I realize what a masterpiece it is. Having seen that, I was able to go back and enjoy it in a more leisurely manner (because you always want to go back and get more from the things you love)--but even then, I still primarily value the visual, and often tend to enjoy the stories, the text, rather the way you enjoy hanging with a daffy uncle, whom you'd be embarrassed however to introduce to your new, sophisticated girlfriend. (Interpret that allegory as you wish.) <br /><br />Ultimately, Dick Whyte is right, of course, when he says: "someone can read the comic paying attention to the words and take the visual cues from that just as one can ignore the words and just look at the images for a different (more abstract) experience." (I honestly didn't think I was in any way opposing such a commonsense view.) It's just that sometimes one of the experiences is at a much higher aesthetic level than the other (this can also be seen in many well-written comics with crap art), and that what I've called the logic of illustration (on which more anon) tends to focus on the former option, so I was, and am, emphasizing the latter.Andrei Molotiuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17400106944822618816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-50715840058149693162010-01-27T01:25:30.056-05:002010-01-27T01:25:30.056-05:00Ah, thanks for the follow-up, Andrei.
It was neve...Ah, thanks for the follow-up, Andrei.<br /><br />It was never my intention (whatever my clumsy wording may have implied) to argue that "ROM" was a project to which Ditko gave his entire dedication and energy, or to argue that Ditko enthusiastically did "ROM" for the sake of Mantlo, or Marvel, or Team Comics. I would never simply assume that of a work-for-hire comic book project; the actual circumstances are almost always more complicated. My comments about "commitment" to narrative were not intended to be a reading of Ditko's situation.<br /><br />Rather, my comments were meant to recuperate the idea of comic book art as primarily narrative, and to suggest that narrative or argument have always been to the forefront for Ditko, no matter how jejune or tired the script. He may have lavished more loving attention on his privately motivated Objectivist work (I'm not convinced that makes it better), but he did well by Mantlo and by "ROM," and he did so, I would argue, in ways that enliven rather than simply slough off Mantlo's plot.<br /><br />I guess my point is that Ditko's treatment actually makes me want to <i>read</i> "ROM." Disputing your larger point, that it's actually the abstract elements that, in hindsight, make this work interesting, was never my intent, and indeed I'm in agreement with you and I dig your analysis. But I'm not able to view the art in isolation from the narrative conception that, at the least, acted as the provocation, occasion, warrant, or irritating grain of sand that prompted Ditko's drawing. My problem is that I almost always read comics for narrative, ideation, or process analysis, so I took exception to your idea that Ditko somehow "transcends" the very story that he brings to life via his drawings.<br /><br />I look forward to finishing my reading on your fascinating Miller-related piece.Charles Hatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00420624399042669001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-22862191158373755772010-01-25T17:20:03.048-05:002010-01-25T17:20:03.048-05:00I've been feeling that maybe I was too flip in...I've been feeling that maybe I was too flip in answering Charles, and so I'd like to try again. Charles wrote:<br /><br />"I'd say that the art in a great comic never "transcends" its subject matter but rather transforms and invigorates it. Like it or not, Ditko's contribution to the above example is working dialogically with Mantlo's, and the art is self-effacing to the extent that it is subsumed to a narrative purpose (Mantlo's). ... the art is inextricably bound up in Mantlo's narrative contribution. Them's just the breaks."<br /><br />And then he wrote:<br /><br />"Isn't it precisely a cartoonist's capacity to be "respectful" of a dumb script that makes comics so lively, untrammeled, and wonderful?"<br /><br />Again, I find the notion of the art being "self-effacing" a bit sad, but also a bit of a generalization (who says it has to be?) and also contrary to the visual evidence (the art in the examples I gave is anything BUT self-effacing). <br /><br />I admit that I may have been too quick to lump Kirby in there: I do think there is a tremendous amount of excess in Kirby's work, but it probably does come from a different source than Ditko's, and does have to do with, as Charles said, "his entire commitment to the narrative."<br /><br />However, it's pretty much a matter of record that, at the time he was drawing ROM, Ditko was neither particularly committed to the narrative he was drawing, nor particularly respectful of it. It's all outlined on pp. 150-152 of Blake Bell's "Strange and Stranger: The World of Steve Ditko." According to Bell, at this point Ditko, true to his objectivist philosophy, was making the "John Galt split"--Galt being, of course, the hero of "Atlas Shrugged." As Bell writes: "The divide grew wider between the lackluster efforts of his work-for-hire material and the commitment and attention to detail that he would lavish on his Objectivist work... He was mirroring John Galt's ethos, working at the lowest possible level to make ends meet, in order to subsidize the creation of his serious personal work." (150) The next two pages support this with testimonies and critical evaluations of other artists and collaborators.<br /><br />Now, obviously, I don't think the ROM work is of such low quality, but this is proof that assuming as a given "commitment" to "the narrative" is fallacious. We are talking about a work-for-hire situation, and it is an unwarranted generalization that everyone in a work-for-hire situation is working toward the same goal, and desiring of the same quality (witness Vince Colletta at his lowest points, or, famously, the Native American extras in "Dances with Wolves.") It is this split that, to me, explains the disjunction between art and writing in ROM: Ditko feeling no personal commitment to Mantlo's narrative, felt free to compete with it, transcend it, or indulge his own formal interests. It is very different from his work on "Spider-Man," to which he was fully committted--and I think our analysis, at the very least, needs to account for that difference, and not assume that "ROM" is "Spider-Man." As opposed to the organic unity of the earlier comic, Ditko's ROM is more schizophrenic, more disjunctive, which in some ways makes it just as interesting.Andrei Molotiuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17400106944822618816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-41992458037795031222010-01-25T15:04:32.629-05:002010-01-25T15:04:32.629-05:00Actually, Greenberg wrote appreciatively on Willia...Actually, Greenberg wrote appreciatively on William Steig and Saul Steinberg, showing clear awareness of the specific issues of cartooning.Andrei Molotiuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17400106944822618816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-451391195860082832010-01-25T14:59:44.160-05:002010-01-25T14:59:44.160-05:00Ok Andrei, I'll repost. I deleted what I wrote...Ok Andrei, I'll repost. I deleted what I wrote becauswe I wasn't sure I'd be able to keep checking in on the conversation and because I'm expecting to get clobbered...<br /><br />----------------<br /><br />I know I'm wading into waters far too deep for me and I fully expect to get bonked on the head by you Theory-Brainiacs who are much much better at this than I am but...<br /><br />It's a little tangental but I feel I have to reply a bit to the caricature of Greenberg that DW has drawn. <br /><br />I don't think GB would have thought all comics were kitsch - only the ones that pandered to the masses. Do you think he would have liked Ware? I do.<br /><br />"...he rejected all forms of art which widened this scope, which sought to open art to minority artists." This is ridiculous. GB rejected work that didn't stand on its own as art - and I'm sorry but a great deal of conceptual and performance work is ugly, dumb and worthless (just like a lot of painting and sculpture and comics). Any "minority" artist making good painting (or anything else) would have been fine with him. Maybe you don't agree with his ideas about art but to imply they are grounded in racism and sexism is offensive.<br /><br />As for flatness,of course GB was aware of the surfaces of painting - he was contrasting the flatness of painting versus illusionistic depth. Cmon! Even I get that and I'm pretty uneducated on all this! <br /><br />I'm sorry to get all hot and bothered but it steams me when people misrepresent GBs actual positions on things. I don't think he's perfect and we're all free to disagree with him but please disagree on what he actually believed, not some straw man you've made.<br /><br />And be gentle as you crush me!whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826725473614994406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-76882316343481339582010-01-25T14:40:55.856-05:002010-01-25T14:40:55.856-05:00I'm sorry that Warren has removed his posts, a...I'm sorry that Warren has removed his posts, as I think they were perfectly in line with discussion up to this point. One thing he said was also something I was going to say in reply to Dick, and I might as well say it now: Greenberg was talking about optical flatness, not physical, or literal, flatness, and that makes a huge difference. As a matter of fact, the opposition to "literalness" was an important part of Greenberg follower Michael Fried's theory in the 1960s and early '70s, and especially of his critique of minimalism.<br /><br />Other than that, Warren, I wish you would re-post your impassioned defense of Greenberg.Andrei Molotiuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17400106944822618816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-68088308406893943212010-01-25T12:35:15.312-05:002010-01-25T12:35:15.312-05:00Well done Andrei. You're a better commenter t...Well done Andrei. You're a better commenter than I am.whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826725473614994406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-14986380753172268632010-01-25T12:29:55.957-05:002010-01-25T12:29:55.957-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826725473614994406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-81691376663940065602010-01-25T12:26:53.911-05:002010-01-25T12:26:53.911-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09826725473614994406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-50247500766981908012010-01-25T03:25:56.741-05:002010-01-25T03:25:56.741-05:00Please do email me (my address is in my profile). ...Please do email me (my address is in my profile). And if people clamor that we continue the discussion here, we can... though I doubt they will.Andrei Molotiuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17400106944822618816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-83915887792215319092010-01-25T02:38:06.024-05:002010-01-25T02:38:06.024-05:00Cool - perhaps I will email them to you then. I am...Cool - perhaps I will email them to you then. I am just interested in this kind of conversation.<br /><br />I re-read what I wrote and I am sorry it sounds combative - critical theory on the run is hard to get right. I didn't mean to put you on the defensive or be myself defensive, and I have the utmost respect for your project and the Abstract Comics blog in general.<br /><br />Hope to talk soon-<br />DickDick Whytehttp://www.wayfarergallery.net/hot-imagesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-33890882621376232032010-01-25T01:03:34.406-05:002010-01-25T01:03:34.406-05:00But feel free to email me. Since your comments ar...But feel free to email me. Since your comments are primarily a critique of my methodology, etc., it's probably best to just take that off-line, since I would be the only one who actually cares about this (well, and Jonny--we can cc him).Andrei Molotiuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17400106944822618816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-26367658868435616022010-01-25T01:01:21.165-05:002010-01-25T01:01:21.165-05:00*sigh*
Dick--
I don't know how to post an an...*sigh*<br /><br />Dick--<br /><br />I don't know how to post an answer that doesn't sound defensive. (I've already deleted three answers.) It seems all I do is either argue that, yes, I know that perfectly well, give my credentials to support that, or I point out the inconsistencies and misunderstandings in your own argument. This was never intended to be an academic article. I write those too, and they're a completely different kettle of fish. If you and Jonny are going to keep this up, I am going to have to start a new blog, a more academically-oriented one, to post things like this on, as I really don't want this kind of niggling academic dissection on the AC blog (I'm not saying it's just you--I'm tempted to reply in kind, and this sets off an entire dialogue that is very unwelcoming to non-academics, not to mention uninteresting).Andrei Molotiuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17400106944822618816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-15888760278711536042010-01-24T20:39:55.873-05:002010-01-24T20:39:55.873-05:00Could I email them to you Andrei?? I really want t...Could I email them to you Andrei?? I really want to post them...Dick Whytehttp://www.wayfarergallery.net/hot-imagesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-4572719433713320652010-01-24T20:38:42.780-05:002010-01-24T20:38:42.780-05:00Okay - so my comment was longer but it won't l...Okay - so my comment was longer but it won't let me copy and paste anything into the comment box so now I don't know how to post the rest of it... HELP...Dick Whytehttp://www.wayfarergallery.net/hot-imagesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-90117271140732327242010-01-24T20:33:15.167-05:002010-01-24T20:33:15.167-05:00Andrei- I totally dig what you are saying and love...Andrei- I totally dig what you are saying and love the kind of analysis you are doing on Ditko, but I think you could start incorporating more post-modernist (or post-structuralist) to HELP your reading. At the moment the kind of theory you have constructed is bound to enter into this kind of combative rhetoric. With a little Deleuze, suddenly it is freed up. There is every need for the rhizome here.<br /><br />Your use of the word logocentric is just confusing and I would drop it. This is a point you never address. Images have a logic. Words have a logic. You can't go back to the Greek to limit the word meaning (in my view) but only to expand and widen it. And you can't go back to the Greek and take only the meaning you want (words) while leaving out the other meanings (reason, order, pattern). There is just as much logos to Malevich as there is to da Vinci - and it has nothing to do with words.<br /><br />And Greenberg does nothing but hurt your project. His work IS suspect for many good reasons - mainly because it is based on absolute qualitative distinctions (avant-garde vs. kitsch for instance) which are untenable in this world. Secondly his entire argument is about an ontology of PAINTING - NOT of COMICS. Greenberg would classify comics as COMICS - and their essence would be different to that of painting. Comics have a sequence - this changes the essence. Comics, like this one, are mass produced (and this means it is kitsch, not 'fine arts'). So yeah, I think your use of Greenberg is really harmful to your overall argument. It seems like a weak way to back up your points.<br /><br />Greenberg openly attacked conceptual art, performance art (and so on). I am not saying his work doesn't have value in terms of opening up discourse around pure form, but it is heavily flawed and your remarks around this only weaken the brilliance of your analysis. This is why I am recommending people like Deleuze, who could take it further and HELP it, rather than harm it.<br /><br />And by harm - I mean that Greenberg carries a cultural critique with him. To use him and only address this flippantly is not on in critical theory. I mean, he comes from a time when white, anglo-american, men ruled the art world and he rejected all forms of art which widened this scope, which sought to open art to minority artists. Honestly, to evoke Greenberg here is a mistake (unless you are going to deal with his work more complexly). As Bungy points out, Greenberg is a grand-narrative maker - he makes up stories about art. He isn't even correct about the paintings he liked.<br /><br />How is Pollock about flatness?? His paintings are sculptural, the paint is thick and viscous. His paintings aren't about flatness, they are about thickness and layers (again - a move from one flatness, to layers, to rhizomes). Similarly, to say Rothko's work is about flatness is ridiculous - his work is about the tension between flatness and infinite depth. Greenberg was wrong. So wrong. Also a canvas is bumpy, not flat. Flatness is not the essence of painting. Nor of art in any sense of the word (according to me). So yeah, in terms of your argument, Greenberg is a duck. What you are arguing for here is an interdisciplinary reading of Ditko (that is, his art has multiple functions in one work) and this is antithetical to Greenberg's project (which is entirely about disciplinarity and ontology).Dick Whytehttp://www.wayfarergallery.net/hot-imagesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-736023858684510612010-01-24T17:44:36.529-05:002010-01-24T17:44:36.529-05:00I don't think there is "precisely" o...I don't think there is "precisely" one single thing that makes comics so lively, untrammeled, and wonderful. There are many ways that can happen. <br /><br />Not to mention that most comics with a dumb script are actually deadly, umm... trammeled, and, what exactly is the opposite of "wonderful"?<br /><br />:)Andrei Molotiuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17400106944822618816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-21035598054626590192010-01-24T17:31:43.106-05:002010-01-24T17:31:43.106-05:00PS. Isn't it precisely a cartoonist's capa...PS. Isn't it precisely a cartoonist's capacity to be "respectful" of a dumb script that makes comics so lively, untrammeled, and wonderful?Charles Hatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00420624399042669001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-10307503105982469012010-01-24T17:29:52.096-05:002010-01-24T17:29:52.096-05:00It's only a pessimistic perspective if you thi...It's only a pessimistic perspective if you think that comics with silly scripts cannot be good. :)<br /><br />My point was, and forgive my lack of clarity, that a crazy-ass story might not be transcended but in fact might be rendered COOL by terrific narrative drawing. To enjoy a comic from that POV is not to <i>ignore</i> story but instead to enjoy story via its delivery in art.<br /><br />I happen to enjoy a lot of comics with bizarre plots and bizarrely inflected scripts. OTOH, I happen not to enjoy a lot of, e.g., Toth comics in which the pedestrian scripts are exceptionally well delivered but not enlivened by the full-out commitment of artistic sensibility. And, in most cases, I have to find something enticing or charming about the concepts, no matter how whacked-out, in order to revisit comics with pleasure.<br /><br />I did not mean to invalidate the pleasures of form and aesthetics that you found in the Ditko example. Only to argue that, for me at least, it it hard to ignore the narrative content, which gives the artwork its animating tension. Ditko doesn't transcend ROM, he makes it fun to read.Charles Hatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00420624399042669001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-77592614622086742272010-01-24T17:20:14.786-05:002010-01-24T17:20:14.786-05:00Charles--I've made my case above, so we'll...Charles--I've made my case above, so we'll just have to disagree on this one. I'll keep writing on the subject, maybe my point of view will become clearer. Let me just say that, for me, to say that "the art in a... comic never 'transcends; its subject matter," and to further conclude that "them's just the breaks," is a pretty pessimistic perspective. I do realize you didn't just say "the art in a... comic," but you said "the art in a great comic," but I think that's just begging the question, and we're back where we started.Andrei Molotiuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17400106944822618816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-55130591383505820992010-01-24T16:53:04.208-05:002010-01-24T16:53:04.208-05:00And a great work of art can arise from a mediocre ...<i>And a great work of art can arise from a mediocre (or, for that matter, abysmally awful) script only if it manages to transcend it somehow, not to be "appropriately respectful" of it.</i><br /><br />Transcend? No, I'd say that the art in a great comic never "transcends" its subject matter but rather transforms and invigorates it. Like it or not, Ditko's contribution to the above example is working dialogically with Mantlo's, and the art is self-effacing to the extent that it is subsumed to a narrative purpose (Mantlo's). The fact that Mantlo on his own (or with most other artists) is nowhere near as interesting as Ditko on his own (or with other scripters) doesn't change the fact that the art is inextricably bound up in Mantlo's narrative contribution. Them's just the breaks.<br /><br />I have an issue of Thrilling Adventure Stories (an old Atlas Seaboard imitation of a Warren/Marvel-style 70s B&W mag) that features a cop story drawn by Alex Toth. The story is terrible, both offensively reactionary and narratively lame. And Toth's great craftsmanship does not succeed in transforming or invigorating the work, at least not enough to make it a good comic. The art and story do not work in close concert in such a way as to create an enlivening tension. By contrast, even Kirby's barmiest 70s comics are fun to read, read being the operative word. I don't think "transcendence" is a useful way to describe this phenomenon, since the qualities in Kirby that I admire are the result of his entire commitment to the narrative, however bizarre the narrative or however wretched it would have been in someone else's hands.Charles Hatfieldhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00420624399042669001noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-90365194293791015172010-01-23T17:31:27.841-05:002010-01-23T17:31:27.841-05:00Jonny--I guess I misunderstood you. It seemed to ...Jonny--I guess I misunderstood you. It seemed to me that you were using the notion of bricolage as a criticism of my reading, i.e. that it was subjective and not warranted by the work. In the context of saying that taking the text and art apart was an "interesting thought experiment," "but" that the work was ultimately "curdled," that is how it read. Yes, it did seem to me that you were proposing a more unitary, organicist view of interpretation. I'm glad to see that's not how you meant it.Andrei Molotiuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17400106944822618816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-899946063697780510.post-61125306207530876672010-01-23T10:14:12.317-05:002010-01-23T10:14:12.317-05:00The conversation gets better and better, and I hop...The conversation gets better and better, and I hope this is in some important ways your “real work,” Andrei – or at least, I certainly think that it should be. I absolutely agree that I don’t want to get too deep into the nuances and convolutions of Derrida’s thinking. I do find it interesting that Derrida claimed he never really meant for deconstruction to be a critical method. Rather, folks like Paul de Man saw the potential in his work, picked up the idea, and ran with it. Sound familiar?<br /><br />Related to that point, I really liked your elaborations and challenges to my and others observations. And I think they are useful and fair…well, up until: “claiming that a certain interpretation of a work is "bricolage" (and therefore, a kind of unwarranted supplement, not belonging organically to the work).” Um, no. Rather, I think implying that an interpretation IS warranted is more likely “to imply a single, unified meaning to the work of art.” (Please note the “more” there.) My deployment of the bricoleur is less about your relationship to some sedimented and certain (and thereby objectively defensible) meaning in the “original,” and more about the ways you take up and use certain comics fragments for your (good, in my opinion)work. And these pages are certainly productive duct tape for the gizmo you are building. But my focus in all of these images is precisely on your USE of Ditko. <br /><br />I made my final point about being “against binary thinking” as a paradox (!) to make a point about the difficulties of avoiding the logocentric. “Anti-logocentric” is not really the absence of logocentrism. It is more like critical race theory’s term “anti-racist” – in cultures of systemic racism, it is impossible to not be racist. Rather, the best we can achieve is an anti-racist commitment that reflexively marks and critiques the racism that pervades the systems in and around us. So too, I think in a comments section on a blog (or in Derrida’s pages!), we are never going to escape logocentrism – thereby making “tu quoque” arguments (i.e. you do it too!) a bit, well, silly. <br /><br />I think Dick Whyte is absolutely on target to summon the logic of both/and and to reference Deleuze and Guattari’s critical metaphor of the rhizome. I don’t dispute the frustration of many comics (and other) artists in the established (systemic?) subservience of art to narrative/script. Liberating the art from such subservience is important and valued work, but the outcome doesn’t (or shouldn’t?) end with either an inversion of the hierarchy or the two going their separate ways. The idea is that we might turn on this critique to consider the two relationally. One place we might go with this is to recognize in the OP (and elsewhere) that there are places where Andrei does exactly this (i.e. re-imagine the relationship), although admittedly I have highlighted those places where Andrei (seems to) disentangle curdled story and art . <br /><br />In the end, I hope these comments are useful to you, Andrei. My goal in commenting here is not to change your mind, but to give you some sense of how someone like me is processing your arguments and claims. Whether you take them up or strengthen your stance against them or ignore them or (more likely) some untraceable combination between is entirely up to you. But I thank you for creating a venue where this sort of conversation can take place.Jonny Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04461895600346750968noreply@blogger.com