Today the Supreme Court listened to heated legal arguments about the tariffs recently imposed by the US. But the arguments over tariff policy have been going on for a long time.
Over a century ago, Winsor McCay, the creator of Little Nemo, drew the following political cartoon about the effect of tariffs:
In my view, today's political cartoonists haven't learned much from the past century.
On the other hand, neither have today's politicians.
52 comments:
Don't feel too bad, the EU have been using customs and other financial sticks against US imports for decades, as I know from purchasing from the States, and have somehow evaded the same criticism they mete out to you chaps.
They even got the government in Ireland to impose the same restrictions and charges on imports from the UK as are now applied by the States to stuff from Europe, despite the fact that there was a preexisting trade agreement between Ireland and the UK that antedated the common market; thus meaning that there was no reason, legal or other obligation, on Ireland to do so.
To get a sense of the stupidity of this you need to realise that the UK is Ireland's biggest export market (about a third of exports go there).
Britain gave the Irish government a year to reconsider the folly of their moves (taken at the behest of the EU, who were trying to punish the UK for having the temerity of leaving their looney neo-commie club [not hyperbole, many EU + european politifians - including Justin Trittin of the German Greens who had a policy of legalising paedophilia down to two years of age - are former communist party members] ) before reciprocating.
So, you can see why quite a lot of people here, while perhaps not fully understanding events in the US that don't affect them, just shrug their shoulders about some of the things such as US tariffs.
I once read an article by Winsor McCay about his special trick for drawing perspective but I can't find it anymore. Has anyone here read it?
JSL
Hide everything behind the crockery ?
Don't blame McCay. McCay was hired by the newspaper editors to popularize what the owners of that newspaper wanted people to believe. So they could continue hauling in trainloads of money off cheap foreign goods.
I expected you to post up the latest New Yorker propaganda cover that presents the newly elected Islamist Socialist Globalist fake as some kind of man of the people riding in a diversity poster subway car. The leftist dream of destabilizing American society to bring about their vengeful woke tyranny continues to gain steam. And the Islamists piggybacking on those useful idiots to take over the west are sleeping well tonight.
~ FV
Yup.
https://x.com/AzatAlsalim/status/1800458557504299282?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1800458557504299282%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fworldisraelnews.com%2Fwatch-muslims-hunt-for-jews-to-kill-on-streets-on-london%2F
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-2888961/Video-Mother-boy-dropped-Quran-says-received-death-threats.html
JSL-- I remember that article. McCay was famous for his wonderful, vertiginous use of perspective and angles in Little Nemo, and it attracted a lot of attention. McCay helped to train the illustrator Jules Guerin, and McCay himself was schooled by Maxfield Parrish-- there was a lot of improvisation and sharing of tricks of the trade back then. McCay didn't use a conventional approach to perspective but whatever he used was very effective. I have no idea how to retrieve that article now, but there are people here who are more resourceful than I.
Anonymous-- the crockery here may not be a good example of McCay's perspective, but I do like the drawing, which is why I posted it. I believe it hasn't been shown for over a century--- it shows McCay's exploding, disorienting use of detail. He must've been a phenomenally fast worker.
As if the other side is innocent.
https://youtube.com/shorts/uM5fkhET7jY?si=yZboABZF6QTNdGuQ
https://xcancel.com/goddeketal/status/1984285852038549683
https://youtube.com/shorts/GIJprk8LEuA?si=r9hYlCe1H9PMdjLX
FV-- The Supreme Court case was not about whether tariffs are good or bad economic policy, but rather whether the US Constitution gives the power of tariffs to the executive or legislative branch of government.
I'm certain the case had nothing whatsoever to do with immigration or Islamic terrorism. The same can be said of McCay's cartoon.
This seems bonkers to me. Tariffs are taxes, and the power to tax obviously rests with the legislative branch, as does the power to regulate commerce. It's spelled out clearly in Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
Of course, the text of the Constitution has long since become irrelevant, and all that matters is how the high priests of the court feel about it.
Israeli stuff ? In gaza ?
As opposed to a gang of inbred islamists getting a police escort across Sadiq Khan's London to the neighbourhood of the jewish community in Golders Green - who have no connection to events in Israel - calling for their blood.
Wake the f'k up.
Or the second link - which concerned a non-muslim english woman pleading for her fourteen year old son's life before a Sharia Court in Wakefield, with police in attendence, as he had scuffed a koran his mate had brought to school. And the local muslim community leaders had called for his execution.
Note how she had to prostrate herself before the religious leaders of a religion she doesn't follow, wearing a hijab, and submit herself to Islam to save her son.
Instead of, y'know, the men who called for the death sentence beingbjailed or deported.
All ahead of you...
Comments disappearing, think google automated censorship was triggered
Anonymous-- Thanks, I'll check to see if any comments have been intercepted by one of google's automated filters. This blog post doesn't have anything to do with immigration, the Middle East, Islam, socialist globalists, or terrorism but at the same time I don't censor anything here except spam.
Thank you, but If it crossed any house rules feel free to leave it deleted. Google is the enemy, but I'm all for local (blog owner's) sovereignty
This seems bonkers to me. Tariffs are taxes, and the power to tax obviously rests with the legislative branch
There are many more questions at issue than merely whether the Constitution grants the power to levy taxes to the legislative branch.
For example, on the question of whether tariffs are “taxes,” they plainly are not. Those who claim that tariffs are taxes do so by arguing that they act like taxes, by creating costs for American consumers that are paid to the government. But if we followed that logic, then the power to print money would also be a tax, since every new dollar printed moves money from citizens holding money to the government, and would thus be the sole right of the legislative branch. In that case, neither the (independent) Federal Reserve nor the (executive branch) Mint could exist.
Second, those who naively argue that tariffs are the sole power of the legislative branch, and therefore could not be delegated under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), must also believe the IRS cannot exist. Clearly, Congress could not have delegated the power to collect taxes to the executive branch, since the Constitution plainly states that “The Congress shall have Power To [...] collect Taxes.” Furthermore, the International Trade Administration would also have to shut down, since the Constitution gives the legislature the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.”
The IEEPA granted the president the power to “regulate … importation or exportation.” Levying tariffs is a clear example of “regulating” importation, as established as far back as Hamilton v. Dillin (1875). It is also entirely consistent with the nature of emergency powers acts that the statute dealt with the matter broadly rather than enumerating every specific emergency power delegated.
Richard-- I write this blog in part to get away from the practice of law, but your legal analysis tests my resolve. I won't engage on the substantive legal points (since both the right and left factions of the Supreme Court have already agreed that a tariff is a tax, that only leaves you an appeal to the Mercy Court of Heaven to test your claim with the Seven Spirits of God). However, let me pass along a tip on effective legal writing from a wise old judge. He said that the more a legal brief relies upon adverbs (such as clearly, plainly, merely, etc.) the more skeptical he becomes.
Now more to the point, what did you think about the McCay drawing?
Or perhaps this was the opinion of his Hearst editor, Mussolini admirer Arthur Brisbane? McCay didn't have much fun working for him. See the Canemaker bio.
For a completely opposite McCay take, see https://picryl.com/media/buy-american-policy-winsor-mccay-cartoon-original-art-abfd66. McCay probably had to toe whatever the line-du-jour was if he wanted to keep his vast Hearst salary (which he needed - his family were big spenders).
As for the drawing, it's always fun to see McCay at work. But his rendering when drawing "realistically" always seems a little off. Not tight enough or well-observed enough to be realism, but not it's quite cartooning either. The crockery makes a standard art nouveau impression - not very specific or interesting. And McCay can't use his real strength here, which is people and complicated perspective drawing. I think it's a run-of-the-mill editorial cartoon.
The esteemed Rick Marschall, editor of the McCay book Daydreams and Nightmares, as well as innumerable other well regarded reference works, asserts that "when McCay’s cartoons accompanied Brisbane’s essays... McCay was the horse and Brisbane the cart. That is, it frequently was made clear that the day’s editorial agenda was set by McCay’s cartoon, to which Brisbane added comments."
He rejects the "McCay-as-wage-slave-for-Hearst-politics " theory, saying, "This version of history, itself, belongs in a land of wonderful dreams, for those who wish that Winsor McCay, fantasist, was a 21st-century flower child, mistreated by corporate overlords. Fueling such distortions, I have wondered, might be the contemporary disdain for Hearst – borne, perhaps of peoples’ affection for the Citizen Kane version of events, as well as prejudice against Hearst, whose career ended as a notable conservative (having commenced as a radical Socialist)." To read more about McCay's actual political views, go to https://john-adcock.blogspot.com/2020/11/a-crowded-life-in-comics.html?lr=1.
One could write a whole encyclopedia about the issues created by art for clients, from Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling for Pope Julius II to Norman Rockwell's covers for the highly conservative and famously controlling George Horace Lorimer (not to mention the beastly Ken Stuart). Sometimes (as with Hearst's protection of George Herriman) a wealthy client could be a godsend. Other times, artists such as Michelangelo could be dragged into debates about whether biblical Adam could be painted with a belly button since he was not born of woman.
Where, though, would you put the apparent contradiction between the two cartoons? In a change of heart paralleling that of his employer?
From your link - "His views consistently were anti-war, isolationist, nationalist, anti-immigration, and Christian", which might not necessarily contradict your title here but certainly modifies any application to current debates, the connection made in this post.
(I'm not the person who posted the link to the Buy American cartoon)
"Esteemed"
Even assuming that Winsor McCay was somehow running the editorial page now and then, which seems laughable knowing how these media rooms jealously covet their power - What did Winsor McCay know about trade and tariffs except what he read about in the paper? And what did any paper's editors write about trade and tariffs that was against the paper's wealthy or corporate owners' views?
~ FV
It doesn't even have to be an artist's employer. Did you see that those fascists at ICE are using Norman Rockwell's art on their website to promote white Christian xenophobia bullshit? The Rockwell family asked ICE to take it down because Norman would have opposed what ICE is doing but ICE said fuck you like they say fuck you to everybody.
"McCay helped to train the illustrator Jules Guerin, and McCay himself was schooled by Maxfield Parrish"
When you last wrote of Jules Guerin you stated he was the one who had studied with Maxfield Parrish. (Though I can't find much information on the two men except that they were acquaintances and Parrish helped get him an industry connection with Century Magazine.) I think McCay was just heavily influenced by Parrish. And Parrish's "Seeing Things" (1904) was probably an impetus for Little Nemo (1905). (prior, all McCay's sleepers were at a diagonal, angling into depth. Afterward McCay's cartoons were heavily front-facing deadpan.)
In their early 20s, Guerin and McCay shared a studio and "traded techniques" circa 1889 and 1890. I can't find any early McCay work to check his quality level at that age. Guerin went on to study and work with a lot of people in fields related to architectural rendering. So he had a great deal of diverse training for his eventual high-level picture making starting in 1901. https://nationalacademy.emuseum.com/people/79/jules-guerin
I too would like to read about McCay's personal bespoke perspective techniques. (Stanislaw Szukalski also developed his own perspective methods.)
The Democrats are importing voters to win elections. They allowed in 20 million illegals. TWENTY MILLION. If they win elections they get to keep all the money and power and hide their crimes and shenanigans. If not, it all collapses.
They teach dum-dums like you to cry fascist! and white christian xenophobia! so you help hide the fact that they're simply importing voters to hold power and get rich. Using the government to funnel money to their big donors like Soros and to their children, friends, and themselves through NGOs etc.
New York and California have NO VOTER ID. That allows them to cheat. And to add to that, they get foreigners into the country and give them American taxpayers' money to buy their votes. Mamdani would not have won if not for the foreigners given American taxpayer money to essentially vote Democrat in NYC. That's why Democrats are sleaze. Money grubbing power-grabbing liars.
So you are an ignorant clown who does the propaganda work of very evil people who pretend to be good. You enjoy calling other people bigots because it makes you feel moral and smart. Democrats know exactly who they're dealing with when they make up their talking points - "Baizuo". Dangerously useful idiots.
As a visual metaphor, this illustration fails. As multimodal simile characteristic of its time, it’s OK. As a drawing, meh.
- - -
Postmodern Anonymouse.
>>>>>Using the government to funnel money to their big donors like Soros and to their children, friends, and themselves through NGOs etc.
The NGO-industrial complex grift is also paying for the rent-a-riots that Democrats use to pretend that they have "the people" behind them on their fake TV news shows. It funds their activist networks using taxpayer money, employing a bunch of otherwise unemployable leftist agitators. Democrat operatives literally run buses between campaign stops, political rallies, and pop up riots. A Potemkin party paid for by you and me.
~ FV
Kev Ferrara-- You're absolutely right, It was Guerin, not McCay, who worked with Parrish. I got sloppy, relying on my memory of a blogpost from 15 years ago rather than going back and checking it out. (I remember being astonished that McCay's path crossed with Guerin at their formative stages.). Thanks for the correction.
Wonder what Rockwell's family think of Sharia courts in the US. Because, as has effectively happened in parts of the UK, it is Islamic belief that they have precedence in any community that becomes majority muslim.
>>>>>>>"As multimodal simile characteristic of its time, it’s OK"
Please explain its "multimodality." And then explain why you think using a big word to explain something everybody knows is some kind of interesting contribution.
~ FV
both the right and left factions of the Supreme Court have already agreed that a tariff is a tax, that only leaves you an appeal to the Mercy Court of Heaven
Whether tariffs are definitively a tax in all cases, we have just two official opinions on that so far to my knowledge: Roberts’ and Sotomayor’s. A swing justice and a liberal, no conservatives yet.
There are plenty of examples of fees levied for purposes other than revenue generation that are not considered taxes, so I am not sure why you are so confident this question is settled.
In this case, it seems to me that the fees are levied as instruments of economic conflict and diplomatic leverage, and therefore align directly with Trump’s implied powers as Chief Diplomat and Commander-in-Chief. Locking down the power to levy tariffs so that they must originate in the House (origination rule), is an absolute hamstringing of the executive’s implied powers.
Now more to the point, what did you think about the McCay drawing?
I’m a fan of his, my son’s middle name is Nemo after his comic, but I thought this was a terrible drawing. I assumed you posted it to spark the legal debate, since the drawing itself didn’t seem to offer much to recommend it.
Dear FV,
what word was too big for you? Was it fails?
- - -
Postmodern Anonymouse
Richard wrote: "I assumed you posted it to spark the legal debate, since the drawing itself didn’t seem to offer much to recommend it."
No, it's never my intention to spark legal debate here (although I should recognize that if people are spoiling for a political argument, the mere mention of tariffs might provoke angry rants about voter fraud, terrorism, fake news, illegal immigrants, rent-a-riots, money grubbing power-grabbing liars, and "very evil people who pretend to be good.")
I had three reasons for posting the McCay drawing. First, I thought it was a fun coincidence that a century after McCay's cartoon, tariffs were still in the headlines. Second, I do like the drawing; the fantasist constellation of shards is a typical disorienting McCay device. He drew a hundred permutations of crockery suspended in a huge depth of field between the foreground and the background. This was not a lazy effort-- McCay cared about this drawing and put a lot of work into it. The design works and-- with all those elements-- the drawing coheres. The line itself isn't my favorite, but I'd say the same about the linework in Gertie and Nemo. With a few rudimentary techniques (such as making the outline thicker around his primary subject, or in this case darkening his main subject with fine line cross hatching) he manages to come up with a cumulative drawing that people find entrancing. And third, I had an opportunity to share high rez scans from an original drawing by one of the greatest, most imaginative cartoonists in history. Not everyone gets to see McCay's work up close that way, and I think people should be reminded of his role on a regular basis.
>>>>>>>>>>what word was too big for you?
You needed to change the wording of what I asked and ignore the quotes that I used in order to get your dumb smarmy riposte to work. Which shows just how lame you are.
I'l repeat the ask. Please explain the "multimodality" of the simile. We are longing to be impressed, and you long to impress. So this should be a good match. Go ahead, explain how bull/tariff in a china shop/economy built of various fragile industries is, oh my god, a multimodal simile! And how telling us that contributed anything.
~ FV
>>>>>>>>>>although I should recognize that if people are spoiling for a political argument, the mere mention of tariffs
Does anybody believe that you don't making hyper partisan MSNBC political statements when all your current events references go one way?
Where's your discussion of Hunter Biden's paintings, the value of which suddenly evaporated when Biden left office? Or Barack Obama's presidential portrait? Or the Lucas Museum of Narrative Art getting a DEI director who spends $15 million on Robert Colescott's George Washington Carver Crossing the Delaware. Or the new Superman film with the Antisemetic Anti-Israel message? Maybe you can talk about the illustration used for the Ekow N. Yankah article for The New York Times "Can My Children Be Friends With White People?" from Nov. 11, 2017. Lots of opportunities to "accidentally" trigger political discussions with "accidentally" partisan art posts.
~ FV
Dear FV,
The cartoon compares the impact of tariffs to that of the motif of a bull in a china shop. As the pictorial representation of this idiom does not sufficiently convey the specificity of the intended comparison, the artist has to add verbal text to the drawing in order for the cartoon to function on its own. This multimodal (THE ARTIST MIXES VERBAL CONTENT INTO THE PICTORAL CONTENT I MEAN HE MIXES WORDS INTO THE DRAWINGS) approach, though artistically weak, communicates sufficiently & lands the pay check.
I leave it to you to figure out why the multimodality (see above) of the cartoon supports the assertion of it being a simile and not a metaphor. For added points, please present the very specific circumstance in which this multimodal cartoon would be a metaphor!
Good luck!
- - -
Postmodern Anonymouse
Good luck!
Whoah! You saw that he mixed WORDS *WITH* PICTURES!!!
Man, your IQ must be ON the charts!
~ FV
Dear FV,
you continue to examplify why sometimes using a «big word» is necessary when discussing aesthetics (WHAT MAKES PICTURES PRETTY) and meaning (WHAT THINGS…MEAN).
- - -
Postmodern Anonymouse
>>>>>>>>>> you continue to EXAMPLIFY why sometimes using a «big word» is necessary when discussing aesthetics (what makes pictures pretty) and meaning (what things... mean).
A modicum of wit would be most efficacious, you charmless man. Better luck next time in your continuing struggle to impress people who find you tiresome if they bother to read you at all.
~ FV
"Robert Colescott's George Washington Carver Crossing the Delaware"
Some things are better left unseen. And the activist lady who shepherded the purchase is no longer with the institution. Though neither is the squandered $15 million that could have purchased a dozen masterpieces for the museum and posterity.
"You're absolutely right, It was Guerin, not McCay, who worked with Parrish. I got sloppy, relying on my memory of a blogpost from 15 years ago rather than going back and checking it out."
I keep a running genealogy of all Pyle's students and their students (and their students.) That's the only reason my brain flagged up the reference to McCay. However, I haven't found a source for Guerin being trained by Parrish either.
When Guerin's style changed to a more Dunn-like painterly approach later on, I assumed he had actually studied with Dunn at some point. But no corroborating information has presented itself on that point as yet.
FV wrote: "Does anybody believe that you don't mak[e] hyper partisan MSNBC political statements when all your current events references go one way?"
I'm heartbroken that you pay so little attention to what I write. In answer to your question, "where's your discussion of... Barack Obama's presidential portrait?" You'll find it in my post of 2/7/2011. If you want to read my criticism of feminist activist art vandals (10/23/2022) or pro-Palestinian vandals (3/8/2024) or gay activists who tried to appropriate Leyendecker's legacy (7/3/2023) or the jerks who tried to cancel Dr. Seuss for being politically incorrect (3/13/2021) or the school board in San Francisco that wanted to destroy a mural for being "racist" (7/1/2019), or the ridiculous Washington Post censorship of conservative cartoonist Michael Ramirez (11/16/2023) or the jihadists who threaten political cartoonists (5/11/2016), you can find them and similar positions sprinkled throughout the history of this blog.
But please note that when politics or morality creep into our discussions, it's generally because they're an inevitable sub-part of art, not because this is a political blog. When I make fun of pro-Trump art, it's only because I think the art is horrible and stupid, such as art by McNaughton or those ridiculous NFTs with Trump dressed up as a super hero with a bulging crotch and laser beams coming out of his eyes. If you'd like to defend that kind of art, or if you'd like to propose an excellent artist I've neglected who does pro-Trump work, that is a conversation I'd relish having.
PS-- Isn't it funny that none of the examples listed in my first paragraph inspired angry retorts from liberal commenters? Nobody from the left accused me of being a biased nihilist degenerate. Yet I do seem to get a lot of accusatory mail from the right, not just for posts that touch on politics but also for posts that touch upon morality (like the discussion of Lolita 11/12/2024) or art that is too "ugly" or that is sexually "depraved." There seems to be a lot of anger out there.
Kev Ferrara wrote "I haven't found a source for Guerin being trained by Parrish either."
That came from a biographical article on Guerin in a dusty copy of (I believe) The Studio . It contained all kinds of juicy stories about Guerin, published mid-career for both him and Parrish. I took a quick look for tearsheets with the story but I stopped keeping those about 10 years ago.
Now neither is that accourate - the vast majority, if not all, of the critical comments on the Lolita covers weren't 'angry', they were 'washing their hands' at the subject of the book, and - my own - pointing out that the ostensibly paedo-critical book was used and often marketed as a proxy keyhole for people with the same leanings as the protagonist. And all the covers (other than the one that was pressed into service from an unconnected source) were abominable in any case, with nothing to recommend them.
The 'ugly' art was the Cuneo post, and the reaction of a lot of the comments is a perfectly natural one to a lot of the art - toilet-wall dick drawings, adolescent phallo-fixation, bloke so drunk he sexually assaults a woman at a party before getting blown by a bloke as he downs more booze..... And the weird pretence that there is some kind of aesthetic-intellectual angle to that kind of mix of the puerile and disturbed.
The reaction wasn't anger. It was incomprehension in the 'wtf ?'-sense.
Bill
On the plus side, you have to admire how 'irony' can transform turd into a such a valuable asset.
Bill
Bill-- I agree that "incomprehension" is what we're dealing with here, which makes me wonder why people would call something they don't comprehend a "turd," "abominable," "puerile," "disturbed," "ugly," "paedo," "adolescent," "with nothing to recommend them." Do you always respond that way to things that mystify you?
I would urge for you the the ancient advice of Seneca: "If you judge, investigate."
Here we go again. Stop the dissembling.
I'm talking Kehinde Wiley’s portrait of President Barack Obama. And Amy Sherald’s portrait of former First Lady Michelle Obama. https://www.mfa.org/exhibition/the-obama-portraits-tour (And we can throw in the ugly Brutalist mound of concrete for his Presidential Library too.) That which impugns their taste directly. Not the Shepard Fairey poster which the campaign adopted at some point but which they did not commission.
You lambaste Trump on current topics. When you can sway people to your MSNBC (to be MSNOW a week from now) viewpoint. You had the chance to do the same on Hunter Biden's egregious and blatant influence scam - far worse a moral or ethical matter than anything else you have posted re: Trump by far - and you passed.
The woke cultural revolution/mind virus is still underway. Where were you when they were yanking down parks-full of statues like the Taliban? (Oh you were voting to pull down a statue in Virginia). You were against the Taliban. But not the American Taliban.
The Lucas Museum blasting out $15 million Star Wars Dollars on Robert Colescott's George Washington Carver Crossing the Delaware is the perfect exemplar of the woke mind virus compromising the institutions that it gets into. Also the perfect example of how leftists use political power to grift off other people's reputations and wealth. And pay off their friends.
~ FV
I'm used to seeing attempts at shifting tables, three-cup-tricks, and sleight of hand in your arguments, but that's just groping with boxing mittens.
'Paedo-critical' - the argument used (by yourself amongst others) that the jist of Lolita is a study of Humbert's depravity while ignoring that the thrust of it places the viewer's* gaze not only along his predatory line of sight but in his mental p.o.v.
(I'm certain you aren't intending that the reality behind the pejorative shorthand 'paedo' itself has anything unfairly considered in it, due to incomprehension or 'mysticism' at it, and is due reappraisal ....?)
Explain why Colescott hiding his inability to draw behind a faux inability to draw, imposed over a 19th c history painting, (you don't even need to defend the flacid racism-as-ironic-to-call-out-racism schtick) isn't a turd and I'm all ears.
Similarly with Cuneo (which is what seems to have provoked you as whenever anyone points out these issues), who at least is talented. An excessive fixation on erect penises, such as is given by certain thirteen year-olds who are temporarily discombobulated by pubertal upheaval, resulting in them being festooned across their copybooks, is a stage most parents of a slow-witted or unhinged boy hope he will grow out of.
This doesn't change by the addition of any implied or overt aesthetic or intellectual 'framing,' such as the deliberate employing of febrile lines to match the state of mind of the dick-fixated, or as 'parody', commentary, etc.
A guy watching a guy pretending to be guy who likes to draw a guy playing with himself is still, at the end of the day, a guy playing with himself, and most people will change carriages if it happens on the seat opposite them.
Bill
(* as I said earlier, I haven't read it so am refering to the film version, but Richard confirmed here what what I'd heard from others - that it is matched in that the "the second half of the book seems to exist only to excuse the first", which "spends a nauseating amount of time indulging in the poesy of a pedophile rapist.")
As for those covers (you can't have thought they had enough in them worthy of note to match even the least of the pieces of artwork you've written about here ? which was what was so odd about that post), 'abominable' was rather grand. Mere 'Shit' would do.
Bill
David: Sorry to go off-topic, but (if it's not too early to tell) when will your Mort Drucker book be published?
Dear FV,
oh, dear - a spelling error. Must be that damned woke mind virus!
I wonder, do you see the modern world like Neo of the Matrix, only charged and rendered with satanic code and symbols? And, what is it with this intellectual inferiority complex of yours? Why is it you think people are trying to impress you? Or change you? Is this what the podcasts have taught you?
Do you even believe other people are real?
- - -
Postmodern Anonymouse
Post a Comment