Friday, June 19, 2009

When It Comes To Art - Can You Have A Type?

I do not understand myself. I really don't. Perhaps that's pretentious sounding. But I'm hoping, maybe it's just honest. Let me explain. I am currently in a self created erotica, sex, romantic relationship null void. That is, I don't really want to read about it, see it in whatever I decide to watch, or hear about it. I wouldn't call it a G rated personal cocoon, but it's definitely a General Interest focus.

I'm looking for graphic novels, comics, and books that have adventure or mystery and action as their A plot, with friendship as their B plot and then maybe, something romantic as their C plot. Considering how often Hollywood in particular feels the need to throw in a love interest for whatever reason they tell themselves; formula, bring in the pink dollars, wtf ever, it means that finding visual media lately has been difficult. Heck, looking up images of actresses lately has been fraught with 'WTH? Why is she pushing that at the camera. The f*ck? What the? Ow... her chiropractor must have thanked her profusely' and more.'

And then comes Demonic Sex.

I'm almost laughing as I type this, at how out of left field that is, by the way. Demonic Sex is, I believe, a gay erotic comic, involving, well, demonic sex. I find the dialogue flat and crude and stupid. And I say this aware that the dialogue is possibly akin to regular porn dialogue. Considering I've never gotten the point of people contorting themselves while naked in front of a camera - I'm going to admit to a bias against the dialogue from the start.

Bad dialogue. Bad, corny, stupid, wince and cringe worthy text.

But the art...

And this is where I get into not understanding myself. Not only am I not currently interested in sex, there's nothing about western gay porn (by men, for men) that I find the slightest bit appealing. It's primarily paying a lot of attention to body parts I don't find the least bit attractive.

So I don't know where to put my 'Ooooh' over the art of this comic. I really don't. At first I thought it was a case of being dazzled by the colours - I love colour. I have poured over the pages of Greg Land's work because of the particular colourist and the life it brought to his drawings.

But then I realized I was not just ignoring the words completely, I was thinking about the artist's choice in composition - how the scene was laid out. How the shadows played. What my eye was seemingly meant to be drawn to. And then on top of that, I found myself noticing body proportions. That's more than just 'ooh colours'.

I have an entry I need to post about why I think I developed a love of animation and comics (sequential art as a whole). The main idea in it, is that I love the thought of getting to see someone else's imagination, as close as possible, brought out of their heads.

That said, I never thought I was the kind of, well, pompous twit who could go on and on about the art in a piece, totally removed from the dialogue (don't they create a whole? shouldn't they interrelate?). I mean I've known, conceptually, that there are people who follow certain artists from Marvel to DC to Image, to various Indies and back again. But knowing and understanding are two different things. I know for myself, I've discovered that most of the times Greg Rucka is involved with something in DC, I find myself drawn to it and intrigued by it; intrigued by his interpretation/imagination of familiar characters. I'm currently peeping with one eye open, through my fingers at World of New Krypton even though it only took about 4 years for me to get fed up with the big two after re-introducing myself to superhero comics and a love for them that had never died.

But to be contemplating continued viewing of something where I have no interest in it at all, past the art? That kind of makes me wonder at myself.

All the same, Sean Platter's work is oddly (freakishly?) pleasing to my eye. It makes me wonder how much more I might enjoy completed pieces (his website has random things up) on a topic that wasn't making me recoil because of current mental sensibilities or well, orientation.

I know his interplay with light and shadow and the lone city glimpse he has up on his site, made me immediately try to imagine him drawing Gotham. The demons he's drawn make me think of gargoyles. And his action sequences make me think of epic battles; the posturing, judging, tactical evaluations, the rush of limbs, strength against strength times wit.

There's a scene I just saw of a man's throat being cut, which made me think of Tim Burton's Sweeny Todd, but better. The sequence made the art come to life, and be painful, instead of seeming gorily overplayed.

Apparently when I say Batman made a big impression on me as a child, I'm really not kidding, people. Or maybe I should say Gotham made an impression on me. How an artist would breathe life into Gotham seems to be one of the subconscious ways I judge art.

That said, going "Cool artist", I guess, is not the same as thinking I must buy this work. Still, it makes me wonder at myself at how I just saw past something that disturbed me, to somehow find a pretty.