Mick

Profile

Username:
drmaus
Name:
Mick
Location:
Pittsburgh, PA
Birthday:
01/01
Status:
Not Interested

Stats

Post Reads:
167,730
Posts:
491
Photos:
1
Last Online:
> 30 days ago
View All »

My Friends

> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago
> 30 days ago

Subscribe

Maus

Arts & Culture > R Crumb and Other Conceits
 

R Crumb and Other Conceits

Something just reminded me of R. Crumb, the weird cartoonist of Zapp Magazine and the Keep on Truckin poster fame. Some years back, there was a film made all about him and his two brothers. All of them had artistic talent, in different styles and degrees.

If you watch the film, you'll understand the difficulty with inner demons and mental illness all three of them seem to have had, and the odd things each tried in order to cope. Before the film was released, one brother had taken his own life. I thought I had read a while back that the 2nd brother had done so, too, but I am glad to find I'm mistaken.

It was clear from the film that art -- drawing, painting, and producing lots and lots of work -- served Robert Crumb to live his life and cope with things far more successfully. Both his brothers had been on-again, off-again artists and I kept thinking that if they had kept up producing artwork that they wouldn't have gone crazy.

When you can draw or write some nightmarish thing, it leaves you a little bit. It's out there in the world, and you've done your bit to express it. This is very important. So when I read news stories about children being suspended from school because they drew pictures with violent images, I start hoping those kids are allowed to draw pictures like that at home, at least.

I still don't get it that this country actually has laws against certain kinds of writing and art. You know what I'm talking about -- it is actually against the law to own or distribute publications containing artwork portraying uh... younger individuals in private situations. I don't know how manga publishers get away with it, there's so much of it and really, it's all vaguely pornographic.

I don't know. I think people ought to be allowed to do that, partly because I don't think any written or painted art should be illegal to produce; of course society is entitled to agree to keep it away from certain places so that we aren't subjected to it everywhere we turn. But stifling someone's urge to express the unthinkable can be so harmful.

That brings me to one of my favorite cartoonists, who publishes under the name Tony Millionaire. His work is both gruesome and lovely. He draws a kind-of-explicit (or at least, "mature") adult cartoon strip, "Maakies" (www.maakies.com) and also writes and illustrates children's books. The thing is, both the kid's books and the adult strip portray the same characters.

There is a Sock Monkey, who in the adult strip is always called Uncle Gabby;
There's a Crow, who is called Drinky Crow in the adult strip. The two are friends. In Maakies, they are sailors on a ship named Maak and they are terrible alcoholics.

In the children's books, they are stuffed animals belonging to a little girl. They came to life because tiny bits of real animals accidentally became part of them. When the sock monkey was being sewn, a real monkey's tooth fell into his stuffing; and in the crow's case, a feather was stuck into his hat and it pierced him.

The kids' books are beautiful, and the adult strip is often disgusting. Really disgusting. One of the cartoons expresses this mix of his focus pretty well: Drinky Crow is sitting on a street curb, hung over. He's staring down into the yucky gutter. Then in the next panel, he's lifted his glance up to the buildings around him. They're cathedrals, and gorgeous.

That one is titled, "You Can Look Down, Or You Can Look Up."

posted on May 3, 2013 11:31 PM ()

Comments:

I've seen that movie about R. Crumb, and enjoyed it quite a bit. We remember the Mr. Natural cartoons from the 1970s. It always amazes me to see something about true artists because it makes me realize how they are driven to express themselves, and I can see what you are saying about how it's important that people have an outlet.

When I think about young people and violent drawings, I think about a murder conviction here in Colorado that was based on drawings by a 15 year old. Ten years later he was arrested for the murder and convicted based on lies by the detective investigating the case. Seven years after that, DNA proved he was innocent, and he sued the cops and won millions. The detective was prosecuted for perjury, but the case was ultimately dismissed for lack of solid evidence, but it was clear that he lied to steer the case.
comment by troutbend on May 6, 2013 11:21 AM ()
Your "take" on people policing themselves, so to speak, is not in sync with reality. My late husband once said that the percent of people in the world who had any real smarts was about 10. How can you not agree when you look around you? The masses are taking over and technology has made that possible. I won't be here to see the growing results of freedom as interpreted by the anarchist philosophy. Every 12 year old computer hacker thinks freedom is hacking into our defense systems and causing havoc. Way to go.
comment by tealstar on May 6, 2013 7:07 AM ()
I have not addressed the subject of people policing themselves. The masses however are NOT taking over, quite the reverse.
reply by drmaus on May 12, 2013 1:26 PM ()
But I'm not publishing how-to-build-a-bomb or where-to-find-child-porn.
comment by steeve on May 5, 2013 6:18 PM ()
Well of course you aren't. But the threat to people who also aren't is still very great. The claim, "If you aren't doing anything wrong you have nothing to be afraid of," simply isn't true.
reply by drmaus on May 12, 2013 1:24 PM ()
I agree with Teal. It's fine to favor free expression, but when that expression crosses into violence or sick stuff, the person creating it needs intervention to see if it's possible to steer him toward a healthier outlook. Allowed free rein, it can easily morph into actual violence or sick behavior.
comment by steeve on May 4, 2013 1:24 PM ()
I don't think you'd retain that opinion once the authorities decided that your self-expression required that they "intervene" with you.
reply by drmaus on May 5, 2013 2:35 PM ()
Censorship, of any kind, is wrong.
comment by jondude on May 4, 2013 6:30 AM ()
I'm for free expression but I am troubled by the easy access to violent self expression that the internet provides. It is too easy now to have one's dark side validated and think it's okay to be that way. So aberrant self expression frees one to get healthy? I think our educators have to address that, not, perhaps by forbidding self expression that is antisocial but, but by guiding the student to a healthier view.
comment by tealstar on May 4, 2013 5:41 AM ()
Oh, I never said some of these artists were healthy. But they are doing things that are necessary for their physic survival and avoiding worse activity. However the internet is a whole different thing that gives an automatic world audience -- and as you say, a kind of validation to a lot of awful things -- that I don't know what to do about. I guess I thought by now educators and families would have carved out some places online that were safer, and they could screen their children's access. But it hasn't happened. There are also things online I wish I could UNSEE.
reply by drmaus on May 4, 2013 9:45 AM ()
You have piqued my curiosity and now I will have to google Maakies.
comment by elderjane on May 4, 2013 5:17 AM ()
Uh oh. You'll be horrified. But sometime I hope you get to see the kids' books, like The Glass Doorknob and others.
reply by drmaus on May 4, 2013 9:29 AM ()

Comment on this article   


491 articles found   [ Previous Article ]  [ Next Article ]  [ First ]  [ Last ]