Comic Genesis Forums

yeahduff wrote:I miss talking about this boring crap with people.

Wow, it has been a while, hasn't it?

Do you know what's really cheap? People who use pencils/pens/paper that was premade before them. you should chop your own tree down, drill for your own ink or dig for your own lead then make your art that way!

I use my own poop. It's been working so far.

I use my own hair and glue made from my fingernails.

i'm thinking about drawing with my own blood. Though that does make me limited in how much i can draw in a day.

Meh. And you call yourself an artist. True artists are used to being all woozy.

Uh... you guys are repeating what's been said two pages ago...

You sound a little like Oldenberg there. Cool.

You and your Oldenburg. But then again, how cool is it, making giant plush toys of typewriter and such stuff...

Hm. You know, as I thought about that, I tried to remember Duchamp's connection with the Dadaists, and I assumed I just forgot what it was, but I think you're right. He had nothing to do with them but some people just loop him up with them. So yeah, I think his most important work could be called proto-Pop.

Yeah, technically, Duchamp was all over the place and there wasn't a movement that didn't want to call him theirs. One of the most ridiculous courses of events, his "Nude descending a staircase" singlehandedly revolutionized American art and inspired abstract expressionism, and then his later works inspired Pop art, which was created as a countermovement to abstract expressionism.

I miss talking about this boring crap with people.

Say, did you notice Tom Wesselman's picture in the corner somewhere on that guest comic of mine?

Forgot all about Tom Wesselman. That weirdo. Had you put one of his paintings on that page, I'm pretty sure I'd of noticed.

You and your Oldenburg. But then again, how cool is it, making giant plush toys of typewriter and such stuff...

Me and my misspelling his name. But he's just so goofy, and so awesome. We'd have much cooler cities on this planet if we allowed him to get his hands on our skylines.

But Ekshin's style sorta reminded my of an essay Oldenburg wrote. Been years since I've read it, so I might be imagining it.

yeahduff wrote:Forgot all about Tom Wesselman. That weirdo. Had you put one of his paintings on that page, I'm pretty sure I'd of noticed.

Well, he's in the corner, half-covered by a speech bubble... the orange and the ashtray...

Ahhhh...... Don't recognize the specific work, but, heh, cool.

Heh. Now I see it. Thought it was a simple still life. What the hell is Charles doing with that?

By the way, some guy wrote me and said you're cool. So you know.

Unsurprisingly, I think we've bored everyone else here.

Still life with a boob.

By the way, some guy wrote me and said you're cool. So you know.

Ooo. Nice!

Unsurprisingly, I think we've bored everyone else here.

With four threads about superheroes and who knows for many threads about games in OT, I don't think that anyone has right to complain.

Hey, now, don't you think Roy Nixon counts as a super-hero?

Depends on perspective, eh?

touche'

But I suppose the real question is not of of perspective but of definition. Does the parody of a genre fit within the confines of that genre?

I never thought it did, really, I always thought that parody is a genre of itself.
For instance, "Blazing saddles" is often considered a highest grossing western of all times. That just sounds kind of... ridiculous.

But then, I didn't think of Roy Nixon as a parody either. It was just... a funny idea... perhaps a comment on how fragile definition of superheroes is...

Dammit, stop talking about this now!

ROY NIXON ONCE TOLD ME WHAT TIME IT WAS! MY HERO! <3

But yeah, I'd consider parody a genre of its own, but that would be pure parody only... there are comics that have parodistic scenes/elements (like RPG World.), but I still wouldn't call them pure parody comics.

mcDuffies wrote:
Dammit, stop talking about this now!

Sorry, no can do. Old skool super-hero fan.

Anyhow, I would cartainly say that a paradoy can be part of a parodied genre, but not necesarily. I think it depends on whether the parody does in fact, and independantly, meet the criteria of the genre. Mystery Men for example was about superpowered or trained individuals making sacrifices to defeat a common adversary and 'save the day'; and while it spent a great deal of the time poking fun at the stereo types, the narrative still adheres to the basic themes.

But then, look at Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid, which had the tone and many elements of the film noir and crime drama, but was so over the top, that it was not noirish at all, but a skillful comedy, complete with overly happy ending. It was almost an anti-noir.

I'd say inclusion of parody in the parodied genre is contingent on the level of parody. A few elements here and there and you could include it, the whole thing being parody, not really. If the parody affects how a basic description of the plot reads, then you've crossed out of the genre and into the parody genre.