Art is open to interpretation... but there are limits
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- All art is open to interpretation... except nah, that doesn't work.
Follow Perch at...
✅ Substack: perch.substack...
✅ Twitter: / comicperch
✅ Facebook: / perch.comments
✅ Email at: comicsperch@gmail.com
🎙️ iTunes Podcast: podcasts.apple...
🎙️ Spotify: open.spotify.c...
🎙️ Google Podcasts: podcastsmanage...
🎙️ Amazon Music: music.amazon.c...
#ComicBooks #TopComics #GraphicNovels
"I was on the CBR message boards." Well that's your first and last problem right there.
You're entitled to your headcanon, but you're not entitled to have everyone agree with your headcanon 😶🌫️
If art is open to interpretation, then I interpret that Jean Grey altered Bobby's mind to forcefully make him gay (for whatever reasons), and that he can be changed back to straight if a telepath fixes his brain.
I see the why as an unintentional commentary on a trend among certain well off white women or depictions of. Who see having a gay bff as a near essential accessory, more than as a whole person.
Question: if someone did a story where Kate Kane fell in love with a man, and then a writer decided "I guess she's been bi this whole time under Tim Drake rules," how would that be taken?
(I know the answer, but, shoot, let's just put that out there and discuss what happens if someone does a fanfic where Kate falls for, I don't know, Ted Kord.)
Yea Tim is not bi, he’ll never again be in a relationship with a woman, because even though all these people will call him “bi” he can never have a normal relationship, because that will be seen as straight.
It would be taken very poorly and people would scream ‘lesbian erasure’ because I think it kinda is, making a minority.. less of a minority, I guess? I don’t know, that would just feel wrong.
@@beepbotWhat would get hinky is if a bunch of people started Tumblr-shipping Kate as either bi or straight and then it spilled over in the published comics.
I don't think this is likely given that shipping seems to be a queer-heavy habit. (I've just....never seen conservative shipping.). It'd be very odd to watch, though, if it did happen and the same arguments came out.
Hate to kill some people head cannon but it’s highly unlikely a character created “in not so progressive” early‘60’s was originally meant to be gay. Especially, since back then, the Comic Code Authority didn’t even allow for even implied homosexuality. Hell, when I was a kid in the early 80’s characters gay characters kinda existed but they were censored. For instance Captain America’s old childhood friend couldn’t call his boyfriend, boyfriend. He had to use the old coded word, “roommate”. They didn’t loosen up until ‘89. And when Claremont made it obvious the Mystique and Destiny were more than friends, they put Mystique in a hetero relationship. As for that example that some try to use, the time Bobby said ick or whatever in regard to Jean, yeah, Beaver from “Leave To Beaver” would say it, too. It just some dumb old trope that young boy characters say back then. Guess they thought it was funny or to indicate that the character is young.🤷🏾♂️ I understand Stan Lee was progressive, but even he was only allowed so much freedom and didn’t even attempt to challenge the Comic Code Authority until almost 10 years later and over the right do a drug storyline.
If it works in your own headcannon and it doesn't flat-out contradict anything that's gone before, then fine. Interpret things however you want. However, be aware and respectful of the fact that everyone else has their own headcannon that will differ either slightly or drastically from yours, and their headcannon is just as true for them as yours is for you.
Muppet Drew: "Here's my interpretation of Perch: he stinks!"
Muppet Mumbles: "He said there's limits!"
Muppet Drew: "Okay, he *somewhat* stinks!"
Both: "Doh ho ho ho ho ho ho ho ho!"
I'm sorry. This is the only joy I have left.
@@adamfrey4920It’s ok. You get an A for effort.
Never be sorry. Especially if it brings you joy.
Well, unless you're causing harm. Then maybe think about an apology.
Hey,the gang’s all here, first!
@@AL-ws5yiI've been working in a different office since June and the Internet signal is terrible in here, so I often can't comment until later in the day. That's why I've been less visible lately.
I'm in Texas next week so maybe things will be different.
I’m much more bothered by how disingenuous the people defending it are than the actual change that was made.
Head canon shippers tend to be the worst part of any fandom and are just miserable people to deal with. Especially when they get angry about something on the page that negates their head canon.
The hardcore "theorists" are also miserable when their theory gets disproven.
I've just learned not to get into those arguments. There's no upside to getting involved. You're not going to change anyone's mind, you're only going to get angry at dealing with obstinate "fans "
Never argue with a shipper. Many are bat guano insane.
Shippers are just the worst, there’s no other group in the fandom that gets under my skin more than them. I’ve seen people online with “professional shipper” in their bio, how on earth can you be a professional shipper? There’s no group that’s more annoying.
@@InfamyOrDeath-__-one can't truly understand modern life until you've seen fans trying to cancel a singer because she got a boyfriend and ruined their 🌈 headcanon 🙂
@InfamyOrDeath-__- I love people who put that stuff in their bios. It let's me know to stay far, far away.
@@AL-ws5yiYea I tried a while ago & it was a terrible idea, unhinged is too mild a word to describe the behaviour.
The only time I was ever given an indication that Iceman was gay was a Family Guy cutaway gag from I think 2001.
The cut-away gag that took on a life of it's own.
Unfortunately whatever the official canon happens to be is subject to the whims of the publisher, who won’t always see eye to eye with the fans. That doesn’t mean you have to accept that canon.
If a character’s sexuality changes via a retcon (a la Bobby Drake), clearly that was never the original intent. That being the case, I think you are perfectly justified in ignoring that change if you want.
As a personal example, I just tend to ignore the fact that Jon Kent is now a bisexual teenager, because the only version of him that I enjoyed was as a 10-12 year old kid.
There are people out there who insist they can only relate to a story if it matches their experience one to one. I can take in a story that I can relate to on a general level because I've been in that state of mind even though the reasons between me and this person are totally different. I can sympathise and empathise, which a very vocal group can't. They want to be all about them, and @$%$# you if you don't agree 100%.
Back during the "All New, All Different" Marvel days, the company was clearly trying to "re-write" the marvel canon in definitive terms by forcefully diversifying their characters. Gender, race, and sexual orientation swapping is problematic when a company has a culture war agenda, which they clearly did. If the sales supported it, I believe they would have continued that project and even discontinued re-printing the legacy stories in order to erase their "problematic" past. Consequently, they've really abandoned any sense of a "mainline" marvel canon, so that in another generation there will be no objective way to view these stories, erasing any universal appeal they may have had in order to support whatever the current social trend is.
Gender and race-swapping is not the same as another character taking up the mantle or identity of an established character of a different gender or race. People have a tough time distinguishing the difference because one sounds more sensational.
@@gkirkpatrick1004 I agree when the mantle swap organically fits with the long form story you're telling (e.g. Sam Wilson becoming Captain America or Rhodey becoming Iron Man or even Clea becoming the Sorcerer Supreme--if executed well) but Marvel went on a tear for a season, inventing new "diverse" characters and giving them the mantle w/in one story arc. Oh, and making half of the X-men cast gay out of nowhere. That's non-sense. After countless soft reboots canon doesn't really exist for these folks anymore.
Most people are bothered by Iceman being gay for the exact same reasons as you Perch. No one who isn't trolling or were dropped as an infant is saying "you _can't have_ gay characters.
On the other hand, it is probably only trolls and people who were dropped on their heads, that say he is gay. But it is OK to be a troll or a person who got a hard hit on the head. You are just going to be wrong more often than those who aren't.
Off topic, why does Walker, Texas Ranger have the same origin as Batman? Iceman was turned gay by teen Jean, who was overwhelmed with culture shock from being in the future.
Saying "It's all subjective" is like waving the white flag of surrender while declaring victory. If you cannot prove your opinion with something on the page, the screen, or in the text, and I can, then I am right, or at least more right, than you are.
Hey Perch, I'll be passing through DFW on Sunday and then I'm in San Antonio again until early August. I want that beer and some Whataburger!
Rob Renzetti (creator of the cartoon show "My Life as a Teenage Robot" ) had a pretty even headed response to that back in 2020 when someone asked on twitter if "Were the themes of the show intended to be a parallel to transgender experiences?" and he said "There was no intentional transgender subtext but that doesn't mean the subtext isn't there. Art is open to the audience's interpretation. I'm pleased that Jenny's struggles resonate with some members of the transgender community."
I think there are concepts like that, that are universal but the specifics can resonate with specific groups or people without it being intentional. I remember with Ender's Game being said to have been relatable to in the closet gay kids, which obviously wouldn't have been intentional considering Orson Scott Card's views on the subject. Doesn't mean it can't be, just that it wasn't the intention.
Art can be interpreted, sure. The problem is when they read the most insane things into it. As much as they try to say that there is no objective truth, there really is and that can’t be changed no matter how much they want it to change.
Like Perch was saying, your right to say "I don't like chocolate ice cream" is absolute. But when you say "Chocolate ice cream is the same flavor as pistachio", your belief won't convince the world.
Yes exactly, and it’s so obviously absurd, seeing someone derive these deep meanings from a canvas painted entirely red is so obviously ridiculous that I’ve no idea how these people say these things with a straight face.
I believe that the issue stems from the confusion between person and opinion. People have opinions, these opinions can form, evolve, and even outright change a million times over the course of a person's life. The way I look at a piece of art today can be vastly different from how I'll view it in 10 or 20 years, because in the meantime I'll have changed myself. So yes, you can totally see something a certain way today, but that doesn't mean that it's the only way, and if you keep the distinction between a person and their opinions clear, then it's easy to agree. Some people, instead, confuse the two, they make their opinions the foundation for their identity, they say "I believe this, therefore I am this" or "This is my opinion, therefore my whole world is seen through these lenses". The opinion becomes part of their own sense of self. And so, if the opinion gets challenged or even disproven, THEY feel challenged and disproven, and that's why they fight so strenuously to defend it, because if the opinion falls, THEY fall. As I always say, people should choose more solid foundations on which to build their own identities. You need certain and demonstrably true facts to create a solid identity for yourself.Opinions are too fragile. Opinions are too fragile.
Modern writers despise the canon and just love do the heroes behave out your characters.No respect or love for the former comic book creators. This sucks so much.
In Alan Moore's Supreme, he pointed out how many times a character is retconned. I guess Superman had a bunch of retcons done even before Crisis. So maybe in "limbo" there is a straight Iceman floating around, while the gay version of him runs around in the 616 universe lol.
I just want to know when they’re changing him back.
Never. It would be bad optics at this point. Though, I don't think it's an accident that he's kind of quietly being ignored in the new era. At least so far.
"Ignore" is a option? Alpha Flight's Sasquatch spent several years as a woman and this is just *never discussed* anymore.
Like the surgery, it's irreversible. @@drewtheunspoken3988
Never, it’ll never ever be changed back, once that change is made it’ll never be reversed.
I don't think a full reversal will be done. However, they might continue to evolve his sexuality over time and make him bisexual or something like that.
Thank you, Perch. It's an interesting subject. I thank you for an even-keeled and responsible approach to this. I mean I've know a few people in my life to come out of the closet later in life, after relationships and marriages. So the whole "but you dated women all your life!" yeah sure but people actually do this. So my suspension of disbelief isn't perturbed by this or Tim Drake. Jon Kent on the other hand is a newer character so he's legit fair game for anything, he's got little to no continuity to support claims of shenanigans. Perch is Right about Art and this. I mean it's sheer Modernity and Post Modernity to reframe & reinvent History to support their Ideology. I'd use Renaissance art of H-E-L-L and the Last Judgement. I wouldn't find a young person saying "look they're all naked and having an intimate group experience without inculcated Western societal mores" to be valid. Thanks, Perch!
The Ranma 1/2 reboot looks really good they even got some of the OG voices to reprise their roles
all opinions about art are equally correct.
FACTS are not subject to that same paradigm. Bobby Drake was not created to be gay nor was he portrayed or even hinted as being gay in +95% of the intervening time. Stan and jack didn't create him that way and he was NEVER portrayed to be so. Period. Not "open to interpretation" even the tiniest little bit. This is a fact.
He has now been retconned to be gay (as have several other characters). Bobby Drake IS gay and will stay that way going forward. That is also a fact. That's how retcons work. People on both sides of this need to get over themselves.
Well said
For someone born around 1920 or so is there not one aspect of Captain America's personality that would perhaps be seen as out of synch with modern attitudes? Does his not have one negative personality trait? I guess could see based on the name alone that people would prefer that he represents an ideal type.
"Art is open to interpretation". Big 2 comics are usually commercial art, a product designed to be sold and/or to sell something. The original inks are closer to fine art, but the scripts are more like advertising copy than Shakespeare. Artistic intent can affect the degree interpretation plays a role in reading a work. I think Stan's main intent at the time was to move units.
But is Barton Fink a comedy? 🤔
Yes.
I'm not sure if comics really are the sort of art that is open to interpretation. They're not really written like that, especially back in the day. Modern comic writers are delusional that their trash qualifies as art. It's not even pop-art
I dunno -- there's a good deal of space to think about whether Batman kills Joker or not at the end of "The Killing Joke", for instance, and what "one bad day" means. There's good stuff out there.
Yeah, I know that one's been around a minute.... Maybe by "modern" you mean "current" though.
There definitely is limits, especially talking about modern art, a bag of trash, or a banana stuck to a wall, a bunch of boxes or a toilet thrown in the corner of the museum is not art. If I can perfectly replicate your art in 5 minutes then it’s not art, there should be talent involved in art. Painting an entire canvas red and saying it has some deep meaning is not art.
What? What does this have to do with retcons or personal interpretation? You're just proclaiming stuff like the king of art.
@@pnptcnAre you the lord of what I can talk about? The question is “art is open to interpretation”, So talking about modern art being meaningless is perfectly valid here.
@@InfamyOrDeath-__- except I thought we were talking about comic books, but ok you go slay king
@@pnptcn The title of the video is “ *ART* is open to interpretation”, not “comics is open to interpretation”, I can talk about any art I want.
@@InfamyOrDeath-__- Even straw toilets and straw bananas, go for it!
I reject your facts and choose to substitute my own!
So, this is very interesting Perch, you will fight against nihilism in comics, but you won't fight against nihilism in the REAL world. You are very happy to indulge people in the real world when they present nihilism to you. I feel this kind of reflects a true nihilistic approach to life. When you don't struggle and fight against nihilism in the REAL world, don't be surprised that nihilism will start to creep into the fictional world of comics as well, because comics to a certain extent, reflects the real world. If you oppose nihilism in comics, you must start fighting nihilism in the REAL world. It's no good saying that I respect trans rights and say that I will address a trans with whatever pronoun they want and then turn around and whine that Captain America is actually not racist and that there IS an Objective TRUTH that exists and it must be respected and defended. It doesn't work like that. Once the nihilist approach to reality, facts and truth is accepted in real world, it will corrupt and spread to all areas of reality. If a man that says he is a woman is indeed a woman, who are you to tell me that Captain America is not racist? You understand or not, Perch? I feel that your thinking on the trans issue is too naive. Too simple, perch. Very naive, very naive. And extremely dangerous.
Holy F*cking Sh*t! Make your own content then, Peter! That sounds like "Comics By Peter" videos just waiting to happen. Go do it. Who are you to order other people around? Sheesh.