While reading this book, I thought what would happen if you gave it to someone with no knowledge of the Bible and had them read it as a secular piece? What would they say about the plot, the story, the characters, the god?
With the Bible I've gotten to the point that I just don't plain care. It also helps that I'm not a religious person or overly familiar with the Bible. I know the main stories but not the details. So it helps that Crumb chooses to scour through the lines of Genesis and depict many of the details that may be lost to readers.
In an interview with Allen Salkin (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/arts/design/18salk.html?ref=design), Crumb comments on a number of things about his Genesis. I found Crumb's thoughts on his work to be infinitely more interesting and revealing than a good chunk of his book. But I'm interested in the pre-production and production aspects of things, so I find it fascinating when creators talk of their process and the reasoning behind their choices. (I begged to my animation instructor and he let me borrow his copy of Dream Worlds: Production Design for Animation by Hans Bacher. God damn this book strikes me down in awe.)
Right off the bat, he says, “I was intrigued by the challenge of exposing everything in there by illustrating it. The text is so significant in our culture, to bring everything out was a significant enough purpose for doing it.”
Before I was focused more on how he presented the content rather than what he presented. How it looked and delivered rather than what it was trying to say. There have been more than a few times in his book where I thought some things just didn't make sense. Also some parts that read like a cheap drama (Genesis is full of men pretending to be their wives' brothers, standing idly as their beautiful "sisters" are taken by kings, then enjoying the riches they receive in compensation as divine intervention reveals to the kings that they were on the verge of committing adultery; men being absolute dicks; women being petty and jealous; and ugly people). Crumb talks to Noah, who he shows as in constant shock at God's decision to suddenly kill the world. When I read this portion, I was thinking how clueless Noah looked. Now that I know he's supposed to be in shock, things make more sense. And it does. Noah was the one good man left in the world according to God. I would think a good man would be concerned for the well-being of other men even if they are bad people according to God. A good man wouldn't condone genocide. Unless of course it was his god doing it. And after the flood, when Noah offers a burnt sacrifice to God, God smells it and is moved to declare that never will he commit genocide again. For Crumb, this "doesn’t quite add up somehow." Yet he chose to be true to the scene rather than manipulating the narrative to show the reader his misgivings.
Another aspect I talked about before was how ugly Crumb's people are. And Crumb himself actually says in his interview with Salkin that he's "not very good at drawing attractive women actually." While I'm sure there are people who find his women attractive, I think he's spot on in this assessment of his own work. And I think we can see from his depiction of Genesis and from his responses in the interview that Crumb is an honest man. He delivers the book in a low key, humble way, something I interpreted as playing it safe. I still kind of do, for the repetition in the artwork is mind-numbing. The short section on composition in Bacher's Dream Worlds alone blows away everything in Crumb's Genesis. After reading Crumb's commentary on The Book of Genesis, I realize that he's trying to present Genesis to readers in a fashion for them to interpret themselves.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Monday, September 26, 2011
R. Crumb's The Book of Genesis
Following The Wolverton Bible is R. Crumb's The Book of Genesis. Crumb states a number of things in the introduction, things helpful in foreshadowing what one can expect from the book. What I point to specifically are two instances:
"I, ironically, do not believe that the Bible is 'The Word of God.' I believe it is the words of men."
"I approached this as a straight illustration job, with no intention to ridicule or make visual jokes."
Just as Crumb believes the Bible to be "the words of men," his illustrated Genesis is the scribblings of a single man, a mundane and down-to-earth interpretation that, at the end of the day, I don't have much to say about. I managed to churn out a rant when given The Wolverton Bible, but Crumb's Genesis is altogether drab. I can leave this book in a corner to gather dust or toss it in the trash, as opposed to Wolverton's, where I would maybe cut out a few choice scenes to save then positively incinerate the rest of the book.
Crumb is conservative in his illustrations. And it's something he acknowledges. He doesn't see the Bible as something to mess around with and treats it so. I'm not familiar with his other work, but from what I can see in this book, Crumb's expressions aren't terribly expressive. He doesn't show a terrible lot of variety in his art; all of the supposedly attractive women are round and chunky with ugly wide lips, brows are constantly furrowed (and that's about as expressive as they get), and the panels almost never depict scenes with more than a handful of people (I think the battle in the Valley of Siddim was the one with the most, and that was only 1/6th of a page). There's more I can tick off, but Crumb falls into the same rut Wolverton did: repetition, staleness. It doesn't help that the constant lines of text make me feel that I'm actually reading the textual Genesis rather than something which is supposed to be illustrated.
Now let's do some comparing. Wolverton and Crumb. They're similar in that I'm not a fan of either. I think they're both ugly. Crumb does however seem to show a higher level of technical proficiency in his anatomy, even though his "attractive" women rarely are (When Adam and Eve were frolicking in the brush it took me a while to figure out who was who. This should never be the case with the first man and woman). Wolverton on the other hand shows a greater level of care in his cross-hatching. Crumb's shading at its worst looks lazy and careless. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It works for the details he puts on the logs making up Noah's Ark, it's absolutely brilliant for the fires raining down upon Sodom and Gomorrah, but it falls flat whenever he shades naked thighs. (Try and guess which sort of scenes show up more in this book.) His crosshatched flesh doesn't work in other situations, but the thighs are what get to me. In every sexual scene in the book, my eyes weren't taken by the actual sex (I'm sorry, Crumb's women are too ugly. His men are ugly too, but that wouldn't matter in any case.) but rather how the crosshatching on the thighs and flesh looked horrible.
Style aside, we can look at their depictions of the Bible. The Wolverton Bible was a compilation of his illustrations organized in a sort of logical way. It's not terribly successful, but at least Wolverton's illustrations try to tell stories individually, and he did take the time to do some more grandiose scenes (some of the better stuff in his book). Crumb's pictures are boring. He's letting the words do the talking, not the pictures themselves as much. In the end I feel that Crumb was rather too conservative in his depiction of Genesis, much as a child watching a documentary might suddenly stand up and say, "this is supposed to be about a war. Where are the explosions!?" I mean, I was bored. I'm surprised I even got through it. But I guess it's only fair after sludging through The Wolverton Bible.
The Wolverton Bible is a man trying to show the glory and wrath of his god and tripping a good amount of the time.
R. Crumb's The Book of Genesis is a man playing it safe. I'm reminded of an episode of Hell's Kitchen where Gordon Ramsay scolds a team (I think it was blue) for creating a menu that was too safe and not challenging enough. I don't recall which season it was.
Crumb believes the Bible to be "the words of men." This belief is reflected in his own delivery of the text, in both his depiction of God and of men. I would elaborate, but it's late.
"I, ironically, do not believe that the Bible is 'The Word of God.' I believe it is the words of men."
"I approached this as a straight illustration job, with no intention to ridicule or make visual jokes."
Just as Crumb believes the Bible to be "the words of men," his illustrated Genesis is the scribblings of a single man, a mundane and down-to-earth interpretation that, at the end of the day, I don't have much to say about. I managed to churn out a rant when given The Wolverton Bible, but Crumb's Genesis is altogether drab. I can leave this book in a corner to gather dust or toss it in the trash, as opposed to Wolverton's, where I would maybe cut out a few choice scenes to save then positively incinerate the rest of the book.
Crumb is conservative in his illustrations. And it's something he acknowledges. He doesn't see the Bible as something to mess around with and treats it so. I'm not familiar with his other work, but from what I can see in this book, Crumb's expressions aren't terribly expressive. He doesn't show a terrible lot of variety in his art; all of the supposedly attractive women are round and chunky with ugly wide lips, brows are constantly furrowed (and that's about as expressive as they get), and the panels almost never depict scenes with more than a handful of people (I think the battle in the Valley of Siddim was the one with the most, and that was only 1/6th of a page). There's more I can tick off, but Crumb falls into the same rut Wolverton did: repetition, staleness. It doesn't help that the constant lines of text make me feel that I'm actually reading the textual Genesis rather than something which is supposed to be illustrated.
Now let's do some comparing. Wolverton and Crumb. They're similar in that I'm not a fan of either. I think they're both ugly. Crumb does however seem to show a higher level of technical proficiency in his anatomy, even though his "attractive" women rarely are (When Adam and Eve were frolicking in the brush it took me a while to figure out who was who. This should never be the case with the first man and woman). Wolverton on the other hand shows a greater level of care in his cross-hatching. Crumb's shading at its worst looks lazy and careless. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. It works for the details he puts on the logs making up Noah's Ark, it's absolutely brilliant for the fires raining down upon Sodom and Gomorrah, but it falls flat whenever he shades naked thighs. (Try and guess which sort of scenes show up more in this book.) His crosshatched flesh doesn't work in other situations, but the thighs are what get to me. In every sexual scene in the book, my eyes weren't taken by the actual sex (I'm sorry, Crumb's women are too ugly. His men are ugly too, but that wouldn't matter in any case.) but rather how the crosshatching on the thighs and flesh looked horrible.
Style aside, we can look at their depictions of the Bible. The Wolverton Bible was a compilation of his illustrations organized in a sort of logical way. It's not terribly successful, but at least Wolverton's illustrations try to tell stories individually, and he did take the time to do some more grandiose scenes (some of the better stuff in his book). Crumb's pictures are boring. He's letting the words do the talking, not the pictures themselves as much. In the end I feel that Crumb was rather too conservative in his depiction of Genesis, much as a child watching a documentary might suddenly stand up and say, "this is supposed to be about a war. Where are the explosions!?" I mean, I was bored. I'm surprised I even got through it. But I guess it's only fair after sludging through The Wolverton Bible.
The Wolverton Bible is a man trying to show the glory and wrath of his god and tripping a good amount of the time.
R. Crumb's The Book of Genesis is a man playing it safe. I'm reminded of an episode of Hell's Kitchen where Gordon Ramsay scolds a team (I think it was blue) for creating a menu that was too safe and not challenging enough. I don't recall which season it was.
Crumb believes the Bible to be "the words of men." This belief is reflected in his own delivery of the text, in both his depiction of God and of men. I would elaborate, but it's late.
Monday, September 19, 2011
The Wolverton Bible
I remember the issues of Mad I'd read in the library in middle school. I first read them because they were popular amongst the middle school crowd. I grew to read them only as a last resort when my mother was particularly late in picking me up. This was because I found the magazine repulsive, both in subject matter and, more importantly, the art. And now I think I know who I have to thank for this art. (I say 'I think' because I'm working off of memory and haven't touched a single page of Mad in almost a decade.)
So, Basil Wolverton. The Wolverton Bible.
http://www.amazon.com/Wolverton-Bible-Basil/dp/156097964X/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
"Basil Wolverton created the most famous MAD magazine cover, the May 1954 “Beautiful Girl of the Month—Reads ‘MAD.’” Ludicrously grotesque, it’s typical of the humorous cartooning that was Wolverton’s principal livelihood. Humor wasn’t the self-taught artist’s only mode, however. From 1952 to 1974, he illustrated the Bible for publications of the Radio (later Worldwide) Church of God, a broadcast-based ministry whose eccentric beliefs crop up in the drawings. His son Monte prepared this complete collection of his church-related work, including some typically funny stuff done for the student publications of the church’s Bible schools. Wolverton used a lot of contrasting pattern work to compensate for his essentially stiff, flat, untutored style, meticulously filling in fields of dots, lines, and, after he upgraded his pens, hatchwork. Wolverton’s faces have only a handful of types and expressions, and he couldn’t do foreshortening. His Book of Revelation drawings, full of grotesque horror, are more impressive than the others; but altogether his religious art demonstrates that he was kind of the Douanier Rousseau, the Grandma Moses, of comics. --Ray Olson"
Copied word for word from Amazon, which in turn seems to be taken from Booklist, so I don't have to. Now that's out of the way. Well, not just because I can be lazy, but also because I agree with what Mr. Olson has written.
In short, Wolverton's stuff is ugly. What can I say. I don't like it.
The man drew Lena the world's ugliest woman, sure. My problem is that the world's ugliest woman became his modus operandi.
It's lumpy, static, stale. What Olson has said, that his work is "essentially stiff, flat, untutored" among other things, is true. It doesn't strike me as art that's driven through talent and inspiration, but rather patience and perspiration. For many of his drawings, if you take away the hundreds and thousands of little lines and scratches of shading and cross-hatching expose, you get some rather unremarkable skeletons and figures that are supported by the details, the filling. Take that away from Wolverton's work and you get, in my opinion, mediocrity. But then that seems to be what his art is about, the time he's put into the scratches on the figures and not the figures themselves. But without the figures we won't have the lumpy, saggy quality of his people. Or maybe not, since on pages 42, 94, and 95 of the Bible we see where he has abandoned the confinement of outline and rendered shapes using only cross-hatching. And those figures still seem lumpy enough. Surprisingly enough, those three drawings are successes in my opinion, which tells me that Wolverton does occasionally have his moments. Like on page 263, we again have the foreground and background. But the foreground is uncharacteristically unscratched, showing in stark relief simple, crude lines of a block (not lumpy!) city and some ferns. What is remarkable here is the background, a vast galaxy revealed to the reader. Now here is an undeniable success on Wolverton's part. Here I witnessed what is his god's glory, or possibly a moment of inspiration for Wolverton. Page 29, where a disappointed God decides to smite the world. And hey, page 23, showing Eve, who doesn't actually look literally like ass as his women tend to do. I do think I love page 23. It is exquisite. The markings on the tree, even the leaves look energetic. If only Wolverton managed to maintain this energy throughout the book.
Unfortunately, I can't help but laugh at the illustration on the bottom of page 95 of Egyptians supposedly in despair. I don't find Wolverton's humor actually funny, but I did find his rinse, repeat style of people in the foreground wailing with others doing their own thing in the background to get so repetitive as to be funny. Actually, I think I'd enjoy this Bible much more if someone took the time to replace the captions with something... funnier, absurd even.
Take the king on page 141: "Who's got the stones!" followed by 159: "Sonofabitch, STONES!"and finally, 142: "WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF THOSE!"
Page 265: It is the year 1974. And yep, still running. Some things never change.
I don't know. While going through the book it's sort of entered so repetitive it's funny territory for me. Someone ought to take the time to recompile the book, and three of the chapters should be titled: "Stone Walls: From Conception to Destruction", "Keep on Runnin'", and "Ooooohhhh!!!".
Ultimately, with Basil Wolverton's art I can't shake the feeling I'm looking at an unsuccessful emulation of some great woodcuts and engravings, where even the crossmarks and lines are interesting to look at. I don't get the same feeling as when I'm looking at something carved by Dürer. With Dürer's work, even though it can get so busy with the lines it's distracting, the shading itself is a marvel to study.
I see in Wolverton's art a determination and a stubbornness. It's something I see as necessary when lacking in training. I don't want to mention talent since that itself is a concept I'm not quite sure I can define. But with the amount of work such doggedness produces, there's bound to be something good there. And in general there's a place for styles like his. Not everything needs to be pretty, and one illustrator Wolverton's lumpiness reminded me of is Richard Corben. I wish Corben weren't doing Hellboy. Corben's ugly faces work for Hellboy's horror setting, but they're still ugly.
In the end, I can respect at the very least the passion I see in Basil Wolverton's drawings, but does that mean I have to like it?
Ha ha ha. Hell no.
So, Basil Wolverton. The Wolverton Bible.
http://www.amazon.com/Wolverton-Bible-Basil/dp/156097964X/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
"Basil Wolverton created the most famous MAD magazine cover, the May 1954 “Beautiful Girl of the Month—Reads ‘MAD.’” Ludicrously grotesque, it’s typical of the humorous cartooning that was Wolverton’s principal livelihood. Humor wasn’t the self-taught artist’s only mode, however. From 1952 to 1974, he illustrated the Bible for publications of the Radio (later Worldwide) Church of God, a broadcast-based ministry whose eccentric beliefs crop up in the drawings. His son Monte prepared this complete collection of his church-related work, including some typically funny stuff done for the student publications of the church’s Bible schools. Wolverton used a lot of contrasting pattern work to compensate for his essentially stiff, flat, untutored style, meticulously filling in fields of dots, lines, and, after he upgraded his pens, hatchwork. Wolverton’s faces have only a handful of types and expressions, and he couldn’t do foreshortening. His Book of Revelation drawings, full of grotesque horror, are more impressive than the others; but altogether his religious art demonstrates that he was kind of the Douanier Rousseau, the Grandma Moses, of comics. --Ray Olson"
Copied word for word from Amazon, which in turn seems to be taken from Booklist, so I don't have to. Now that's out of the way. Well, not just because I can be lazy, but also because I agree with what Mr. Olson has written.
In short, Wolverton's stuff is ugly. What can I say. I don't like it.
The man drew Lena the world's ugliest woman, sure. My problem is that the world's ugliest woman became his modus operandi.
It's lumpy, static, stale. What Olson has said, that his work is "essentially stiff, flat, untutored" among other things, is true. It doesn't strike me as art that's driven through talent and inspiration, but rather patience and perspiration. For many of his drawings, if you take away the hundreds and thousands of little lines and scratches of shading and cross-hatching expose, you get some rather unremarkable skeletons and figures that are supported by the details, the filling. Take that away from Wolverton's work and you get, in my opinion, mediocrity. But then that seems to be what his art is about, the time he's put into the scratches on the figures and not the figures themselves. But without the figures we won't have the lumpy, saggy quality of his people. Or maybe not, since on pages 42, 94, and 95 of the Bible we see where he has abandoned the confinement of outline and rendered shapes using only cross-hatching. And those figures still seem lumpy enough. Surprisingly enough, those three drawings are successes in my opinion, which tells me that Wolverton does occasionally have his moments. Like on page 263, we again have the foreground and background. But the foreground is uncharacteristically unscratched, showing in stark relief simple, crude lines of a block (not lumpy!) city and some ferns. What is remarkable here is the background, a vast galaxy revealed to the reader. Now here is an undeniable success on Wolverton's part. Here I witnessed what is his god's glory, or possibly a moment of inspiration for Wolverton. Page 29, where a disappointed God decides to smite the world. And hey, page 23, showing Eve, who doesn't actually look literally like ass as his women tend to do. I do think I love page 23. It is exquisite. The markings on the tree, even the leaves look energetic. If only Wolverton managed to maintain this energy throughout the book.
 | |
| Page 23, a rare Wolverton woman who doesn't look like ass. And those leaves! |
Take the king on page 141: "Who's got the stones!" followed by 159: "Sonofabitch, STONES!"and finally, 142: "WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF THOSE!"
Page 265: It is the year 1974. And yep, still running. Some things never change.
I don't know. While going through the book it's sort of entered so repetitive it's funny territory for me. Someone ought to take the time to recompile the book, and three of the chapters should be titled: "Stone Walls: From Conception to Destruction", "Keep on Runnin'", and "Ooooohhhh!!!".
Ultimately, with Basil Wolverton's art I can't shake the feeling I'm looking at an unsuccessful emulation of some great woodcuts and engravings, where even the crossmarks and lines are interesting to look at. I don't get the same feeling as when I'm looking at something carved by Dürer. With Dürer's work, even though it can get so busy with the lines it's distracting, the shading itself is a marvel to study.
 |
| Now those are some sexy lines. Dürer even included a crazy man. |
In the end, I can respect at the very least the passion I see in Basil Wolverton's drawings, but does that mean I have to like it?
Ha ha ha. Hell no.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)