-- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "ShempMcGurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > > An exceprt appeared in the New Yorker a few > > months ago. > > > > I was shocked in reading it. Why? Not > > because it seemed a satire but because it > > was so "straight" and very, very un-Crumb-like. > > Like most people in the world, you don't know > Robert Crumb at all. He's the straightest arrow > on Earth...doesn't drink, doesn't smoke, doesn't > do drugs. And the shyest person you've ever met.
Of course, this is entirely irrelevant to Shemp's comment, which was referring to Crumb's *work*, not Crumb as a person. But Barry was much more interested in reminding us all that unlike most people in the world, HE KNOWS ROBERT CRUMB, because that makes him IMPORTANT AND SPECIAL, at least in his own mind. > > My immediate impression was that Crumb had > > become a born-again because the strip so > > adhered to orthodoxy Christianity. > > Didn't you even read the review? The book is the > text of Genesis -- all of it -- with literally > every scene illustrated. Never been done before. Non sequitur. Again, Barry doesn't want to discuss the book-- he doesn't have anything insightful to say about it, in fact--he only wants to make the point that HE KNOWS ROBERT CRUMB, because that makes him IMPORTANT AND SPECIAL. Does this have a familiar ring? I seem to recall many iterations from Barry of a rant about how people feel IMPORTANT AND SPECIAL because of their association with a famous guru. > What was fascinating to watch is this guy you > characterize as only a satirist forming around > him a cadre of religious scholars and historians > to check his drawings for inaccuracies. And they > were there -- he had unconsciously drawn in things > that were anachronisms to the time, or clothing > that wouldn't have been worn in the times, only > much later in history. So he went back and changed > things. This book will be considered his "master- > work," although I don't think it is. That title > applies to some of the private-edition erotic > works. (Don't bother looking for them unless you > have several thousand dollars to spend.) This > book will sell for the normal price...he even > refused to let them sell a "limited-edition" > private (read expensive) version of it. Nothing whatsoever in this paragraph that actually responds to Shemp's comments. Just more self-important boasting about Barry's inside-baseball knowledge of Crumb. > > So I am surprised by what is written in the > > article above because if the New Yorker > > excerpt is representative of the work as a > > whole, it is neither a satire nor a Crumb-like > > comic but more like the Classic Comics version > > of the Bible without any liberties taken. > > The difference is that the artists who did Classic > Comic books 1) weren't very good artists, 2) didn't > know their history or the periods of time they were > illustrating (or didn't care) and thus made it all > up, and 3) didn't have a real feel for the source > material, and a desire to bring it to life. This is not only totally irrelevant--again--to Shemp's comments, but it's total bullshit. The quality of Classic Comics was uneven, but there was some *excellent* work by top artists who *did* care about the material and went to the trouble to get it right. > Robert's work has been compared favorably to the > best artists in the world; his drawing style was > called by one noted art critic "Second to none, > and I include Breughel and Michaelangelo in that > statement." Get over Zap Comix, Shemp...Robert > did decades ago. Blahblahblah. Still totally irrelevant to Shemp's observations. But Barry KNOWS ROBERT CRUMB, and that's almost like knowing Breughel and "Michaelangelo" [sic]! It makes Barry IMPORTANT AND SPECIAL. >From an earlier post: "I've seen some of these drawings. In all honesty, I think that someday art historians will be dis- cussing them in the same sentences they use to describe Breughel's drawings of the Bible." In all honesty, it appears Barry didn't come up with the Breughel comparison himself; he got it from the "noted art critic" but tried to palm it off as his own in the earlier post.
