OK, so there was a bit of a kerfluffle on the Internet this past week regarding an otherwise extremely positive review of the book How to Make Webcomics by Johanna Draper Carlson, which included this little tidbit:
Oddly, the promotion chapter doesn’t mention either press releases or getting reviews, both sources of free coverage; instead, dealing with critics is covered in the audience chapter. The author of this section, Dave Kellett, breaks them into four categories and says, “each one can be diffused or made impotent by kindness and politeness.” So the goal here is not to listen, but to deflect. And that’s reflected in his categories; not one covers someone pointing out a legitimate flaw or place for improvement in the work. In other words, he doesn’t think critics are ever right. (The categories are the person who’s mean without meaning to be and really loves the comic; nitpickers correcting “useless details”; the hater; and the troll. This section, by the way, was the first piece of the book I read — it’s where the copy I was browsing fell open when I first picked it up. Fate!)
That prompted this reaction from one of the book’s co-author’s Scott Kurtz (creator, if you don’t know, of the popular PVP Webcomic):
I’m not sure how I ended up in so many tug-of-war competitions with bloggers, where the outcome of our match determines the superior position: creator or critic. But it seems to be cropping up again. There is a strange sense of entitlement, an eerie assumption of an unspoken working relationship that I am happy to inform does not exist. Why we insulate ourselves from the notion that the external critic can EVER be right, is because their critique is moot in regards to the progression of our work.
Think about Star Trek and the Prime Directive. Sometimes, civilizations take a left turn in their natural progression and things go tits up. Sometimes there is a dictatorship or a famine or a plague that is going to steer this civilization into trouble, but the crew of the Enterprise CAN NOT ACT. They can NOT interfere. To interfere with those hardships would be to damage the natural progression of that civilization.
All of the progress I’ve made in my work, be it writing or art, was accomplished through getting it wrong the first time. My father always told me that the first brush stroke will never be perfect. There’s only so much you can learn from reading books on writing or art theory. You have to create and get your hands dirty and see what works. You have to take risks and you have to fail.
There’s been a number of reactions to Kurtz’s statement, most of them negative. To my mind though, the best analysis was by Noah Berlatsky, who pretty much takes that barrel of fish and pulls the trigger of his bazooka:
I agree with the overall point, actually…but not for the romantic artist-as-tragic-hero reasons that Kurtz gives. The point of criticism really isn’t to help the artist out — at least not in the sense of telling the artist what it is he or she should do or change. A finished piece is a finished piece. You say it’s good or you say it sucks, or you say it’s somewhere in between, but that assessment is aimed at the work’s (potential) audience, not at the artist.
This is obvious when you review, say movies — the folks involved in Dark Knight aren’t going to read or care about my review, and everyone knows it. The comic-book world is small enough and insular enough that I think these distinctions can sometimes get blurred — Jeff Brown, for example, has suggested that I have a personal vendetta against him, when in fact I just don’t like his comics (or some of them — I rather like others.) Along the same lines, I think comics critics can write as if they’re giving feedback, rather than writing a review.
Berlatsky pretty much nailed it here, but I think the point is worth underscoring (and what use is this column anyway if I don’t bring up issues like this, even if it’s already been said better than I could).
To repeat: Kurtz clearly misunderstands what a critic’s role is. You don’t write a review or any piece of criticism hoping and thinking that “Oooo, this will show Creator X the error of his/her ways!” When Samuel Johnson wrote about Shakespeare, he wasn’t hoping that the Bard’s ghost will somehow pierce through the ethereal plane, read his words and at long last know true peace. Any good critic (and keep in mind, I’m talking about those who really and truly make an effort at writing worthwhile criticism, and not the nasty message board trolls and blog commentators that Kurtz seems to throw in the same bucket for some reason) writes for a) themselves and b) people who are wondering about consuming this particular piece of art. If it was the other way around, why bother discussing all these dead authors?
I think what Johanna was talking about when she mentioned the importance of getting reviews for a creator was not feedback necessarily as much as getting your work talked about. And what they say about there being no such thing as bad press can be true. If I read a withering review of a comic by a critic whose opinion I trust, chances are I’ll give it a thumb-through next time I’m in the store. I probably won’t buy it, but that’s more attention I spent on that book than the tens of other titles facing out on the rack that week. It got on my radar.
As Berlatsky notes, feedback is important. As much as I feel art is about self-discovery as communication, I would be lying if I said I didn’t hope that people got something of value from my writing, at least every now and then. And yeah, of course it’s a thrill to get to interview a creator you admire, or to discover they enjoy your work as much (or at least a little) as you may enjoy theirs.
Ultimately though, it’s beside the point. The work itself itself is the issue and I don’t really care if Kurtz or any other cartoonist writhes in agony over a cruel word I said about their masterpiece or decides to completely revamp their work from here on out or ignores it completely. I’m not reviewing the book for his sake.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Yes, I was talking about getting attention, that’s why I lumped it in with other forms of journalism like press releases. The funny thing (at least to me) is that this whole discussion has led Kurtz and others to say a lot of valuable things on the topic, which would make an excellent foundation for future coverage of the subject … if only he admitted it was worth talking about.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
WOW…what a non-issue. I can’t believe you waisted a whole column on this. People in comics tend be petty for no reason.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
very interesting. i can understand both points. and never read or seen anyone define a critic’s role. that being said i think it;s a good thing that people are criticizing critics. just to show them that despite the intentions of anyone’s critique it does deeply affect the person it’s about.
August 17th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Oddly enough, I’m with Kurtz on this. The critics play an important role in the finished piece/promotional & sales, but his major point regarding the creative process is one I fully believe in. So much so, I can’t even understand how anyone is even having an actual discussion about this.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
What? I really don’t understand how a critic impacts the actual creative process. It’s not like they take a time machine, go back and yell at you while you’re doing the work. They critique your finished product, and you choose whether or not you regard it for future purposes. An artist or writer who is so significantly affected by one, or a few polarizing opinions already proves that they do not have a strong vision or artistic judgement to make the right call for themselves. It’s one thing to accept alternative opinions that have validity but to allow yourself to succumb to overly critical opinions that you do not agree with for good reason is just artistically weak.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I fortuitously came upon a great quote about the function of critics from W.H. Aduen about the same time I saw Noah’s post:
http://madinkbeard.com/blog/archives/auden-on-critics
August 17th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Clem, when we’re speaking of comics (web or print), we’re normally talking about ongoing properties. And the criticism is as much about what the writer or artist accomplished or attempted to accomplish as it is about just a piece that has seen print and is already becoming irrelevant. So the discussion of the creation process is valid, if way off from what Kurtz was responding to.
I’m pretty sure that many creators have responded to calls to flesh out a character more, to feature a character that has resonated with their audience more and other little bits. Most of today’s artists have developed to where they are artistically by responding to portfolio critiques. So, in a very real way, Kurtz is full of it.
Feedback (critical analysis) from a colleague, critic or well-informed fanbase can absolutely have a positive impact on the creative process. It’s up to the individual creator to decide what sources, if any, they feel have value.
As such, it is perfectly fine for Kurtz to feel he has no use for any feedback…even though that’s clearly not the case, since he shares an anecdote where he provides feedback he expects to be used to another creator. But to generalize that it has no useful place in the process for any creator on any project anywhere in reality is where he oversteps.
And all in deciding to have a strawman argument in response to Johanna wondering why critics weren’t even factored into how to draw more people to your work.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Well, it would be helpful if there wouldn’t critics out there like Johanna who have an ideological ax to grind. Many of her reviews start out with the premise that most superhero comics are (a) inherently bad and/or (b) sexist or insulting to women.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Kevin: I can see how my opinion is kind of more pertaining to a creative work in general. But my point I guess is that a critic is not irrelevent to the creative process and I tried to address that by shooting down Scott Kurtz’ statement that critics impact (negatively though) the creative process. I guess a better statement would be that whether or not critics impact the process, Scott is off about his opinion of critics because you don’t ever create work in a vacuum anyways.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Stephan, you are looking for bias that isn’t there in this review. This was a favorable review with the exception of one point.
I agree that there are some times when a bias can slant a review either good or bad. I don’t “get” manga, so I couldn’t do a good review of manga. There are people out there who hate DC that are still reviewing DC product, and the same for Marvel. But I just don’t see it in this review.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:06 am
I don’t understand Kurtz’s point. Should we not ever criticize any piece of art because we don’t “get” the creative process? If we think the story telling techniques were flawed or proportions of a character were inconsistent we should keep quiet because we don’t know what the creator went through? Sure stuff like “so-and-so should drop dead and never make another comic again” is pure crap, but am I as a consumer not allowed to say I think that Claremont is too wordy for my tastes and I shouldn’t tell others what I think?
Sure, Kurtz’s father may be right and the first brush stroke is never perfect, but that doesn’t mean we’re not allowed to say it’s not good. If Kurtz is gonna cry over a few harsh words he’s better off not Googling his own name.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:23 am
I take it Kurtz hasn’t gone to art school or had an art class; if he did I’d be a bit surprised from his responses here.
An artist, in hearing out an audience, shouldn’t let external criticism compromise the “pure form” in the artist’s mind of what he/she intends the artwork to represent, BUT criticism (ideally from one the artist considers a peer) can always help the artist to better his/her own work (as long as they keep an open mind and do not take every single opinion to heart).
Yes, there are some people (whether in a classroom, blog, or studio) who will have a vendetta against you (be it born from jealousy or aesthetic preference), and there are some who just aren’t “informed enough” (in your chosen medium) that their opinions could benefit you. But, I believe an artist grows not only from the inside, but letting the outside in, they should be fluid in this way. Very few artists are an “island” of creative brilliance, and for me, that’s where my graphic design-studio classes where most important, and drove this point home. Beyond the techniques I learned, it was the maturity that I developed, through group critique (in becoming open to external opinion) that helped me the most and gave me the courage to confront the flaws in my “precious” work (and by extension helped me grow in technique as an artist-designer and as a person).
I know the interwebs can be a negative place, and could cause an artist to become a bit emotionally “raw” from review, but honestly, an artist (especially one working in a commercial field) should read, acknowledge, and be able to weed out the constructive from obnoxious (or ill-informed) opinions of their audience, critics, and peers. I personally believe most successful artists do function with this level of maturity.
Sorry if that was all written a bit “clunky,” it’s very late here, but I felt I needed to toss in my 2 cents.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:35 am
One other thing, and this was covered above, it really isn’t the place the for a reviewer to try to “help” the artist by exposing his/her flaws in critique of the work, their place is to help their fellow “spectator” understand said artist’s work, done with as little bias as possible…I’m just saying that with a thick skin, an artist can still find these voices invaluable (and as I said before, this is ESPECIALLY important in a commercial application of the artist’s work).
August 18th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I *think* Kurtz’s point is that the creator has to Find His Own Way or something along those lines, meaning that he should make his own experiments and figure out for himself what works.
What he seems to be overlooking is the possibility that the reaction of readers (critics or otherwise) might at least provide some indication of whether an experiment worked. After all, what does “worked” mean, other than “produced the desired effect in the reader’s mind”?
August 18th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
The only people who dismiss critics are people whose work has gotten lots of bad reviews. Film director Uwe Boll (look him up) keeps making movies which get theatrical releases which bomb and quickly go to home video. He’s gotten the moniker of “worst director in the world” and he’s reacted to this, not by trying to make better films which might actually make money for his producers, but by challenging critics to boxing matches. Film criticism in particular just conveys what a movie does or doesn’t accomplish and the audience can decide if this is the sort of thing they want to see, whether or not the reviewer liked it. Some things critics condemn are exactly the sorts of things some people actually want to see.
August 18th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
My point was that the role of a review blog like Johanna’s is to provide her opinion for the benefit of comic book consumers, not to aid the creator in their creative process.
I never took exception with Johanna’s very positive review of the book. I only took exception with her assertion that it was wrong for us to fail to advise our creators that sometimes, people like Johanna are RIGHT. Meaning we’ve crossed from opinion to fact when it comes to the merits of our work and that we should somehow allow for that in regards to modifying our work.
Creators should maintain a constant unease when it comes to satisfaction with their work. They should keep the internal critic alive and active. Creators should also seek out other artists and peer groups for critique of their work so they can continue to improve.
Creators should NOT, however, start taking in every review they read of their work as a means of constructive criticism. The signal to noise ratio would be impossible to navigate. Most reviewers make strong but opposing arguments. If a creator too it all in and all to heart, he or she would spin like a dervish and get batted around without an clear direction.
That was my point from the beginning. I maintain the point now. I hope everyone understands it better.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
I followed up on my previous post on the issue here, with some clarifications.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Jesus, where, at any point, did anybody say “hey, artists should take in EVERY review they read of their work as means of constructive criticism?” Who said that? Johanna? Noah? Mautner? Brothers?
Oh yeah that’s right NOBODY said that.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Tucker, to quote Johana’s review:
“And that’s reflected in his categories; not one covers someone pointing out a legitimate flaw or place for improvement in the work. In other words, he doesn’t think critics are ever right.”
So it’s right there. Johana states that she feels we should have done more to advise creators to be open to critics who might be “right” about the “legitimate flaws” in our work so that we can improve.
She said it. I took exception to it. Everything else is just people blustering about what a baby I am.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
ejulp,
I did go to college and I do understand the importance of artists finding peers to offer critical review and critiques. We spend four chapters of the book illustrating this by example. We each take turns offering constructive critique of each other’s strips.
That’s something that Johanna failed to mention in her review. Clearly she’s only interested in making sure we advise new creators to listen to people with HER jobset.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
I can’t tell if you’re joking or not: she says to be open to critics who might be “Right”. See the “might” there? See how she doesn’t say “every critic?”
There’s a big difference between that, and your argument of listening to ALL critics. At no point does anyone make the argument you toss out, which is good that they don’t, because it’s a stupid argument that doesn’t make any sense. There’s a big difference between Pauline Kael and michaelbayfan113 on the Rotten Tomatoes message board.
God, I’m not even agreeing with her, I’m firmly in the Noah Berlatsky “who gives a shit whether artists read reviews, ignore reviews, or anything else. Reviews aren’t for artists.” Go ahead and don’t listen, I don’t care or not. But for Christsakes: reading comprehension. It isn’t that hard. You want to stand up and talk about how you only listen to other artists, blah blah whatever? Totally great. You want to write a book about how that’s what you do? Omigod that’s awesome as well. But if you’re going to “take exception” then “take exception” with what somebody actually says, not whatever silly personal interpretation you’ve inserted into it to create some phantasmal point of view that nobody in their right mind would disagree with.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
I think I comprehended her fine. I’m not sure how else I’m supposed to take what she said.
August 19th, 2008 at 3:46 am
“I never took exception with Johanna’s very positive review of the book.”
This bit from Scott made me laugh. It’s almost like saying, “I agree with critics that say good things about me.”
What I don’t understand is why you’re making such a big deal about this. She makes a statement about reacting to critics then you come out and reacting like she has no right to think she’s right in her reviews. And if she doesn’t think think she’s right and that any criticism doesn’t have any legitimacy then what would be the point in even reviewing it then?
But if this is gonna be how you react to Johanna’s review then it’s probably best you didn’t write a part in your book about it. I don’t think she’s any of the following: “the person who’s mean without meaning to be and really loves the comic; nitpickers correcting “useless details”; the hater; and the troll.” It probably wouldn’t be prudent to advise anybody to make a big fuss when a critic disagrees with your artistic principles.
August 19th, 2008 at 7:21 am
Scott, you’re being disingenuous now. I already pointed out to you in this previous discussion thread elsewhere that
1. I did too mention the sections where you talk about each other’s work — from the review, “Each of them also gets a two-page focus section in which the four analyze a couple of their strips.” (Personally, I found them one of the weaker sections of the book, since there’s little give-and-take and it feels to this reader like you were trying hard not to hurt each other’s feelings.) The idea that this is a valuable tool for any artist isn’t really called out in the book or explicitly discussed, nor is how to form a feedback group. An aspiring creator may not grasp the lesson you’re trying to teach here without that context.
2. More importantly, you say that you’re not sure how else to take what I said, but again, in that previous thread, I told you flat out, “When I see absolute statements, I tend to pick at them. That doesn’t mean that I think critics are always right, just that a creator might want to allow for the possibility occasionally.”
I understand why you have a very different perspective on these matters, but to keep asserting things about what I said that you’ve already been corrected on takes this from well-meaning disagreement to something much more unpleasant. But then, when you started this goofy debate by calling me a liar, I should have guessed that was the likely place it would wind up.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:50 am
I think Scott Kurtz is suffering from the arrogance of “Fame”.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:15 am
I dunno. I’m kind of sick of the debate at this point. I’ve talked it to death and been defending myself from so many positions that others have brought into it.
I have a strong bias against reviewers because I’ve met too many of them that are looking to become as important as the artists they judge. They’re looking to become the “Eberts” where their critiques of actual works of art become equal to the art itself. Where their reviews themselves are the art.
I’ve probably unfairly lumped you into that category.
Maybe I just need to step back and get some distance from the debate so that I can come back at it later with a better perspective.
August 19th, 2008 at 10:16 am
I’m suffering from the “arrogance of fame?”
Wow. Nice.
August 19th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Scott, I’m with you — it’s been talked out at this point. You’re passionate about your craft, I’m passionate about mine, and where they touch… well, everyone’s got an opinion.
August 19th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Johanna, just the fact that you refer to blogging as “your craft” tells me that, yeah, we need to stop talking about this right now.
August 19th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
(Why did I think this could end gracefully?)
My craft isn’t blogging, any more than your craft is “using Photoshop”. A blog is a tool; my craft is reviewing. I’m a critic, and proud of it.
August 20th, 2008 at 12:22 am
If Kurtz thinks his niche webcomic is a ‘craft’ then he is as deluded as anybody could ever be.
It’s not total hackery, but it’s about as much ‘craft’ as Miley Cyrus’ singing is ‘craft’
It appeals to people and makes money…that’s the merits of his comic. As art it’s nothing special, as even he realizes as he continually changes his style to more closely remember Mike Krahulik.
August 20th, 2008 at 5:51 am
Johanna’s reviews qualify as art in and of themselves; I guess that’s the difference between her work and PVP.
August 20th, 2008 at 11:30 am
“They’re looking to become the “Eberts” where their critiques of actual works of art become equal to the art itself. Where their reviews themselves are the art.”
What an f-ing absurd sentiment. You’d have to be either illiterate or oblivious to a pretty wide swath of your local bookstore to suggest such a thing.
A Pauline Kael essay isn’t the equal to art itself– it’s frequently BETTER than and has *already lasted longer* than any number of the movies she reviewed. Dorothy Parker will outlive us all. Gary Groth has had a longer and more significant career in American comics than scores and scores of cartoonists– more people right now know what the Comics Journal is than will remember most of the dopey, disposable comics they’ve reviewed (let alone the things they haven’t bothered to review).
What an absurd sentiment.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
YES!. Of course man. You guys are all hitting the nail on the head. the CRITICS are the REAL artists. Groth, and Kael, and Parker. They are the real creators. We cartoonists, novelists, screenwriters and painters are all just here to service their mighty pen.
Thank God these giants deign our work worthy to judge.
I’m glad I could spend even a small amount of time on this earth doing my part to contribute to the true artists of our time: the critics.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Isn’t it great how you think I’m hilarious, and I think you’re hilarious? We may not share a philosophy or world-view, and only one of us apparently knows who Dorothy Parker is, but I really genuinely think it’s wonderful how the magic of the Internet and blogs and comics, how they let us both have a little moment of smug superiority that we didn’t deserve today. It truly is magical. Best of luck.
August 20th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
I’m sorry Scott. But I’d much rather read Kael write about, say, DePalma, than read your strip. And I like your strip.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
http://www.starslip.com/comics/ssc20051212_peanuts.gif
August 21st, 2008 at 12:41 am
“We cartoonists, novelists, screenwriters and painters are all just here to service their mighty pen.”
What you don’t seem to appreciate is that many people; novelists and painters, and fans of such folk…do not include YOU in that WE. Even as you labor to lord you superiority over the critics, yea verily others feel the same way about you.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:49 am
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Dorothy_Parker
August 21st, 2008 at 7:54 am
That is interesting… but it’s probably explained by “they look down on us webcomickers, so we need someone to look down on so we’re not the bottom of the chain.”
I don’t understand how saying “critics also work hard at their craft” becomes in Scott’s mind “critics think they’re more important than those they write about”.
August 21st, 2008 at 9:57 am
When Ghostface criticized 50 Cent, 50 Cent made a song called, “Oh Yeah, F-ck You, Too, Ghostface.” Ghost replied by pushing 50 cent down a flight of stairs. In all of this, I’m amazed that gangsta rap has once again shined the light of wisdom on us all.
Here’s about as far as this conversation should have gone:
Scott to Johanna: Oh yeah, f-ck you, too, Johanna.
Johanna to Scott: *push down stairs*
Have we learned nothing from 50 Cent? Instead, we’re having strawmen propped up left and right. And no one’s asking, “What about the strawmen body count? Won’t somebody think of the strawmen?”
August 21st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Eric Burns said it best. I should have just let my work speak for itself. My issue with Johanna was clearly stated. It was one line she wrote. If you or anyone else want to falsely claim that I shit all over her entire review then that’s fine. I never did. I just used her one issue with the book to illustrate a point.
I’m not the only one who feels this way. I’m just probably being the most vocal about it right now. Webcomic people do not need to shit on critics so we can have someone lower than us on the totem pole. That’s ridiculous. I think we are all very comfortable with our position in artistic society. We’re doing what we love for a living. You can’t get a better feeling than that. If this is the bottom of a totem pole, then I am a very lucky man.
Johanna is not a critic. She’s a blogger. I know professional critics. I know bloggers who SHOULD be professional critics because they understand what it is that they do and they should be paid for their opinion. They’re that good. They offer a useful and entertaining service to consumers.
As someone who creates on a daily basis, I personally believe it’s hard to create and easy to review. Anyone can sit back and judge all the work that’s being put out. It’s another thing entirely to put your own heart out for others to judge. I get snarky when people try to claim the the two are interchangeable.
I don’t know why so many people find that surprising.
August 21st, 2008 at 1:49 pm
As someone who creates on a daily basis, I personally believe it’s hard to create and easy to review. Anyone can sit back and judge all the work that’s being put out. It’s another thing entirely to put your own heart out for others to judge. I get snarky when people try to claim the the two are interchangeable.
Anyone can sit back and judge things, yes, just like anyone can create a webcomic, or novel, or play, or comic, or song, or whatever else you want to bring up. Anyone can do anything. People do things constantly. However, not just anyone can do it well.
You keep conflating (good) critics with flamers or message board trolls or I don’t know what, so you aren’t actually talking about what anyone else is talking about here. You’re taking shots at Johanna in lieu of actually speaking to the idea that some critic, somewhere, at some point in time, may actually have a good point with regards to the work.
There are some critics who put their hearts out there, too. Sometimes they have a deep personal reaction to a book and that colors their review, for good or ill. Sometimes personal history plays into how they receive a work.
This isn’t about Creators vs Critics. Stop trying to frame it like that.
Johanna, your opinion and my opinion of her work set completely to the side, is a critic. She self-identifies as a critic, others have called her a critic, and she has been recognized as a critic by other writers, artists, and creators. You’re trying to diminish her status as a critic by calling her a blogger– why? Because you two disagree on whether or not a critic can ever be right? Because she said your book would have benefited from a section on how to deal with critics and journalists? That’s foolish.
Her position, which I hope I am not misrepresenting here, is that sometimes, a critic can be helpful. Not all the time, not every time, sometimes. She’s said that all critics are not the same, all critics do not have valid opinions, and that all critics aren’t helpful.
What is so terrible about that position that you have to basically denigrate anyone who ever bothered to produce criticism? Art being hard doesn’t mean that criticism has to be easy. You’re trying to prove your points through ridiculous personal attacks against Johanna in particular and critics in general, when what you should be doing is looking at what the argument actually is.
Stop conflating idiots and critics. There’s a tremendous difference between the two.
This shouldn’t have been a Creators vs Critics argument at all and it was a mistake to frame it in that way.
August 21st, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Calling someone who functions as a critic online as [merely] a “blogger” is no different than you calling a web artist who doesn’t have published work a “poster”. I know you have PVP published through Image and that that “elevates” you a bit,’cuz you “made it” in the industry, but by contrast does that mean that all the other web comic artists who are not as fortunate to have been published, any less of a “real” artist than you are? Or are they a “poster of images” and not yet a real “comic book artist”? Just confused by your statement; does paper and payment make it real? In my mind, professional usually just equates to “you’re getting paid for your work,” but not getting paid for your work does not make you any less of a “real” artist or a “real” critic.
How can that even be argued?
August 21st, 2008 at 3:19 pm
“As someone who creates on a daily basis, I personally believe it’s hard to create and easy to review.”
And that’s nice, but you plainly don’t read criticism, you don’t appear to be very well read in general, so guess what? Your personal beliefs are without merit. They aren’t based upon either experience or evidence, just a snotty sense of self-importance. You’re not entitled to your opinion, only your informed opinion.
“Anyone can sit back and judge all the work that’s being put out. It’s another thing entirely to put your own heart out for others to judge.”
Buy a trenchcoat; flash kids on the sidewalk– it’ll cut down on your bandwidth costs.
What you do IS NOT special. Millions of people have written fiction. Bookstores are choked with novels, published novels; publishing houses are choked with manuscripts; there’s thousands of comics on the internet. It’s just what you do, and what you take pleasure in, and apparently have met with some success with. Fine. Great. Good luck with it.
But you’re not some unique snowflake, and to suggest that that only what you do is art, and only what you do is special– does it not occur to you how unbelievably arrogant that is? Really?
All you’re doing is continuing to reveal is that you don’t really read much, or you’re not very educated. Bookstores are thick with critics, dead critics even, who people read and take pleasure in to this day. If you’re thinking you’re better than or will last as long as H.L. Mencken, you’re delusional. (And this time, at least google H.L. Mencken’s Wikipedia page).
You might be exposing your heart, but if the results appear to be somewhere between hackneyed and creepy, who gives a good goddamn? To a segment of the audience, what matters isn’t how you feel about yourself; it’s quality. And you don’t have the monopoly on that just because you call yourself an artist, and arbitrarily decide who is and who isn’t a part of your artist club.
Oh but I forgot: other people agree with you but won’t say. You got us there! Well, your mom and your mom’s mom, and your mom’s mom’s mom all agree with me but they aren’t saying anything because they don’t want to hurt your feelings. They all wish you would call more.
Good luck selling t-shirts.
August 21st, 2008 at 5:32 pm
I never said I was a unique snowflake. I just said that creating is harder than judging things that others create. If you want to put words in my mouth make me say something really interesting at least.
I’m doing fine selling tee shirts. You should start a blog and start reviewing them.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:11 pm
You know, I have to agree with Abhay about people remembering criticism long after the orginal work has been forgotten. For example, I don’t think I’ll remember much about Vinyl Underground #1. But Abhay’s review of it on the Savage Critics website? Where he tried to put on that he was knowledgeable about England but used the term ‘paki’ because he didn’t know it was a racist term of abuse? And then when people called him on it in the comments he went back and took it out but then he tried to claim he’d only used it because the book did but when he actually went back and checked he had to admit it didn’t but then he claimed he couldn’t be racist because he was Indian-American and someone said ‘What tribe’? I’ll remember THAT.
August 21st, 2008 at 6:27 pm
I find it supremely ironic that a man who has fought tooth-and-nail to prove the legitimacy of webcomics to his printed peers would turn around and dismissively refer to online critics as “bloggers.”
August 21st, 2008 at 7:40 pm
Pssssst….
R.D….
Come here…
Just thought that you might want to know – the question of Tribe doesn’t really correspond to being INDIAN-American. I think that you may have confused INDIAN-American with NATIVE-American. You know. Native-American – the term that has found popular usage due to the fact that calling the indigenous people of the Americas was, at absolute best, a misnomer on the grandest scale.
August 21st, 2008 at 7:45 pm
@Scott Kurtz “I never said I was a unique snowflake. I just said that creating is harder than judging things that others create.”
C’mon man, you know that’s completely f**king relative, predicated by whatever level the individual is deciding to function on when art making or analyzing the context in which said work was created. An artist does not need to “justify” their work, it can exist as pure expression, it can exist just for interpretation (if the artist so chooses), but a critic has to back up their statements on the artwork, justify their opinion or interpretation; not being of the artist’s “actual” mind, that in and of itself can make the critique as “hard” and time consuming as the actual art making was. But that’s not even the point, NEITHER IS BETTER, that’s completely subjective.
This isn’t a case of which is better or which is “harder,” the individual decides that before setting upon their projects.
I actually think your just f**king with us now to rile us up more, sitting back laughing at all these posts.
There’s no way that was a serious comment you just made.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:04 pm
Ken, you’re a published critic. You go to junkets and screenings on behalf of actual publications.
That’s a far cry from someone simply owning a WordPress account. Also, you don’t suppose to be a part of the creative process.
August 21st, 2008 at 8:19 pm
“Ken, you’re a published critic. You go to junkets and screenings on behalf of actual publications.
That’s a far cry from someone simply owning a WordPress account.”
Isn’t that akin to drawing a distinction between creators of webcomics and those who have been “published”?
August 21st, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Also, you don’t suppose to be a part of the creative process.
Ken, tell Chris about your incredibly well-reviewed story in BLACK DIAMOND #2, you published critic and published creator, you.
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:55 am
Here’s the bottom line guys: Johanna doesn’t have to justify what she wrote to me. I don’t have to justify what I wrote to her. If it’s okay for Johanna to post a review of my book on her site, it’s okay for me to respond to her critique on mine.
She doesn’t need me belittling her work. I shouldn’t do that. I’ve gotten defensive and angry in these comments and it’s clouded things a lot.
You guys are right to call me on the blogger/critic thing. A person’s work always speaks for itself. It is what it is. My work are my cartoons. Johanna’s work is her review site. In the end, the only opinion that makes or breaks anyone is the opinion of the market. If I love Johanna’s work and the market doesn’t, she won’t survive and vice versa.
Ken Lowrey – You make an excellent point and I concede it to you. Everyone who puts their reviews online is not a professional critic just like everyone who posts their cartoons online are not professional cartoonists. However, there are web-only critics and cartoonists who are obviously pros at their craft. Not everyone can be a professional, but professionals can come from anywhere. Thanks for calling me on that.
August 22nd, 2008 at 2:16 am
Pssst…
Ed Ward…
I know that, you cretin. If you read what I actually wrote, I was refering to a JOKE. That SOMEONE ELSE made. In a comment thread to a mind-bogglingly stupid ‘review’ that Abhay wrote, mocking him.
Oh, and you want to talk about misnomers? Refering to people as ‘native’ to a nation that was founded several millenia after they started living on that continent? Built on the back of their mass genocide? Well done! Who’s a culturally sensitive boy, then?
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:01 pm
Chris: The point I’m getting at is that format doesn’t make the man. (Or woman, in this case.) Dismissing someone because they publish online is something Kurtz has fought very hard against, and rightly so. I felt it necessary to point out to him that he was contradicting one of his strongest-held convictions, and apparently he agrees with me.
And as Larry points out, I actually have worked both sides of that aisle (in two ways — online and print publication, and criticism and creation. Kevin Church has had quite a bit more published than me, so he knows, too.) I can say with some authority that writing good criticism isn’t merely “passing judgment,” it’s more like a reflexive action created by lifetime obsession and a need to express yourself. If you’ve got the bug, you can’t NOT do it. That’s something I think most artists could relate to.
Even more basic than that, good writing is just good writing. And that most certainly is a worthy craft.
Scott: That is the finest lesson of Ratatouille, and I mean that sincerely.
August 22nd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Whoops! Wrong Kevin I cited there, disregard. So much for good writing…
August 23rd, 2008 at 5:33 am
I remember when I was really young and first started reading comics, I could never understand comic insiders bickering or feuding because I was, of course, young and naive.
Now it’s kind of funny, like a messed up Thanksgiving that starts out okay, but at the end, grandma’s hair is on fire, a couple of uncles are trading punches, grandpa is chasing the dog to get his dentures back, children are crying, dad is half-drunk, and mom is pretending to be completely oblivious.
August 23rd, 2008 at 10:16 am
I’ve done both professionally and read both. I’s suggest to Scott that another way of looking at it is that they’re both creative acts, it’s just that one has a very limited purview. It’s not “one person creates/another person judges.” It’s “one person creates about something/another person creates about that act of creation.”
If you can wrap your mind around an act of creation where you take on a specific subject matter or more specifically an act of cration where you riff on pop culture or more specifically an act of creation where you pay homage to another work or more specifically an act of creation that involves remixing elements of an original work into something new you can probably learn to see writing about something as a creative act.
Most of it sucks giant, hairy balls, of course. But yeah, HL Mencken’s act of creation in “A Book For The Gourmet” is in my estimation and a lot of reasonable folks’ estimation more significant, more edifying and a greater act of creativity than the script for the ’60s diary episode of Beverly Hills 90210. And with that noted, I think that the majority of criticism of the majority of things tends to be inferior to the original thing, and most times it’s not close to being a fair fight.
The only tie is the Kentucky Derby/Hunter Thompson on the Kentucky Derby.
I’m not sure I understand the original tussle, and I assume at this point everybody has said something nice about everybody else and there’s not longer any fighting. As a creator I don’t read criticism of my own work because I’m no longer 23 and I consider most critics, myself included, to be total fucking morons. As a critic I don’t write to creators because I’m more interested in how their works are received than how they were created. If I were to write with the creators in mind, I’d forgive them if they didn’t agree to return my attention.
August 24th, 2008 at 1:00 pm
” As a creator I don’t read criticism of my own work because I’m no longer 23 and I consider most critics, myself included, to be total fucking morons. As a critic I don’t write to creators because I’m more interested in how their works are received than how they were created. If I were to write with the creators in mind, I’d forgive them if they didn’t agree to return my attention.”
This is the point I was trying to make, Tom. I just didn’t do it as eloquently as you.
November 7th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
What’s that crowd? Oh, a bunch of people watching Scott Kurtz tweek and preen his reputation, now that he has their attention with another tantrum. It sounds sincere, but only weeks later he’d be at my site, hurling insults and saying stupid, poorly considered remarks.
You are enabling an egomaniac, folks.
January 24th, 2011 at 3:05 pm
lol, I still can’t get enough of Miley! She is just the best!
July 8th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Thanks for another informative web site. Where else may just I get that kind of information written in such an ideal way? I’ve a mission that I’m just now working on, and I have been at the look out for such info.