This weeks Dandy

[big bad bri]

sorry i didnt mean to offend you nigel. it would have been ok if it wasnt called puss & boots maybe just cat & dog asi wouldnt have nothing to compare possibly one of my all time fav comic strips in 30 years + of collecting comics.as for coperal clott i have never really cared for that story ever no matter who draws it.

[-MikeD-]

sorry i didnt mean to offend you nigel. it would have been ok if it wasnt called puss & boots maybe just cat & dog asi wouldnt have nothing to compare possibly one of my all time fav comic strips in 30 years + of collecting comics.as for coperal clott i have never really cared for that story ever no matter who draws it.

This forum has many folks (okay - me included) who are a little conservative in their comic art tastes, and the only time this becomes a real problem is when artists take our beloved childhood heroes and put a modern spin on them. It takes time to adjust, or we just shake our heads and walk away.

But It's an editorial choice to employ an artist, knowing his style, and set them loose on the likes of Puss'n'Boots. You've got to admire the desire of The Dandy editorial team to embrace the new cartoon aesthetic so wholeheartedly...it takes guts to engineer such a radical change.

The new Dandy Annual looked quite fun and colourful to me, I can see very young children enjoying it. My Mum always buys it for my sons for a Christmas present, so that's when I'll get to read it properly and find out what the kids think....

[Nigel Auchterlounie]

Yeah we are getting here.
I wasn't offended Bri don't worry, and please never censor yourself or you'll stop being so much fun.

Like the song says "I don't care what you think, as long as it is about me."

[Raven]

This forum has many folks (okay - me included) who are a little conservative in their comic art tastes, and the only time this becomes a real problem is when artists take our beloved childhood heroes and put a modern spin on them. It takes time to adjust, or we just shake our heads and walk away.

But It's an editorial choice to employ an artist, knowing his style, and set them loose on the likes of Puss'n'Boots. You've got to admire the desire of The Dandy editorial team to embrace the new cartoon aesthetic so wholeheartedly...

Please note: these comments below are meant in general, and are not directed at any *specific* artist or piece of work or what's being discussed upthread. Just *general*, non-specific musings.

The thing is, though, Mike, I don't think it's entirely fair to tag people with the "conservative" brush, if they complain about what they consider to be poor or crude artwork, bad storytelling, poor craftsmanship, etc. Sometimes, as they say, a cigar is just a cigar and bad art, or dumbed down scripts and the other things people get ruffled about are simply just that - or at least you have to allow for that possibility.

There's nothing "new", "modern" or "cutting edge" about poor or crude artwork, for example. Plug published some appalling stuff in 1977 (one of the reasons I hardly ever bought it), as did Triffik in the early 90s, both of which would have drawn the same "looks like it's drawn by a four year old" comments you often hear now, twenty and thirty-four years ago (though people didn't talk about "the new cartoon aesthetic" back then!).

People who complain about lower standards of craftsmanship in certain cases aren't necessarily conservative or needing to adjust. They may just have good taste!

[swirlythingy]

The problem with any subjective art analysis is that those who dislike recent creations have so often been guilty of crying wolf - humanity, and particularly the older sections of humanity, has been saying "it just ain't a patch on what it used to be back in my day" continuously for the last three hundred thousand years. Every single one of them thinks that this time they're right and everyone before them was wrong. Bad art may well exist, but how can you separate it out from the storm of criticism about pretty much anything? For example, I've personally never been able to fathom why anyone would lavish millions on a Picasso. And people seem to like David Law's Dennis the Menace much more than they do many of the similar styles in the current Dandy, some of which are actually less sketchy.

Back on topic, and on a more serious note, this week's Dandy contains the fewest pages of new comic strips since the revamp - a mere 18, including shorts. This is exactly the same number as the current regular cast in the Beano, including Dangerous Dan - only the second time parity has been achieved, and this time it looks permanent.

Whither George vs Dragon? They haven't been seen for ages!

Good riddance Cheryl's Mole. Hope it's not seen for ages.

[-MikeD-]

People who complain about lower standards of craftsmanship in certain cases aren't necessarily conservative or needing to adjust. They may just have good taste!

Heh...

Yes, okay. They may just have good taste...
-----
As for The Dandy having less pages of comic...it looks like the belt tightening has started....

And Yore! finishes next week. I'll miss it. The Etherington Boys may be irritating publicity hounds, but Lorenzo has a style that is easy on the eye and The Dandy really needs an adventure strip.

[Digifiend]

Whither George vs Dragon? They haven't been seen for ages!

Back at the start of October, apparently. Check Andy Fanton's website.

[Raven]

Bad art may well exist, but how can you separate it out from the storm of criticism about pretty much anything?

You can only apply aesthetic judgement, based on universal principles (the primary aesthetic notions being beauty and ugliness).

[-MikeD-]

Bad art may well exist, but how can you separate it out from the storm of criticism about pretty much anything?

You can only apply aesthetic judgement, based on universal principles (the primary aesthetic notions being beauty and ugliness).

At the risk of getting waaay , isn't aesthetics, as a branch of psychology, now understood to be almost entirely culturally specific, and devoid of any static universal principles? Evolutionary psychology is way more revealing when it comes to aesthetic judgements. So Swirly's question is a profound one - with the exception of poor craftsmanship relative to accepted standards of aptitude, I can't think of a definite way to separate genuinely bad art from art that is, for want of a better word, challenging to you as an individual.

Back on topic...I'm enjoying Nuke Noodle. The best new strip in The Dandy for ages. And I think the sketchy art sells it.

[WizzKid97]

The Dandy may have way too many celebrities for my liking but there are still some good stories in there keeping the comic together:

Tiny's Temper, Bear Behind, Dave the Squirrel, Nuke Noodle, The Bogies, Desperate Dan, Mr Meecher, Fat Cat, Clown Wars, Yore, Jibber & Steve, Bananaman, 99 Genius Homework Excuses, My Own Genie, Postman Prat... I'm just waiting for George VS Dragon to return. And Pre-Skool Prime Minister. And Thingummyblob. And Boo. And Kid Cops. And Sea Dogs. And Harry and his Hippo. Need I go on?

The Dandy should try and focus more on entirely original stories rather than celeb mickey takes. What annoys me is the front covers, just celebs, celebs and more celebs!

Also the bit underneath the title, why have Celebs first? Surely Comics, that's what it is right, a comic?!

[dishes]

Bad art may well exist, but how can you separate it out from the storm of criticism about pretty much anything?

You can only apply aesthetic judgement, based on universal principles (the primary aesthetic notions being beauty and ugliness).

Many artists whose style I regard as really really ugly, are (as I now know from reading this board) some of other people's most beloved artists.

This topic of whether you can judge art on objective criteria keeps coming up and the people on each side of the argument never agree, so I will say no more.

[Raven]

At the risk of getting waaay , isn't aesthetics, as a branch of psychology, now understood to be almost entirely culturally specific, and devoid of any static universal principles? Evolutionary psychology is way more revealing when it comes to aesthetic judgements. So Swirly's question is a profound one - with the exception of poor craftsmanship relative to accepted standards of aptitude, I can't think of a definite way to separate genuinely bad art from art that is, for want of a better word, challenging to you as an individual.

It is a deep question, but I think it's on topic here! One of the problems with the "it's all relative/there are no universal principles"-sayers are that, while this may make them sound extremely tolerant on the surface, they may be the opposite, because relativists put their judgments beyond criticism, and cannot, by definition, be mistaken. Only the folk who think there is a right and wrong in aesthetic judgment can humbly admit that they might be wrong. And I think that "beyond criticism" stance isn't good for the industry.


Another thing: say someone looks at Ken Reid's Odhams peak in the 60s as a high plateau for comic art, then looks at one of the more extremely "primitive"/simplistic strips that exists today, and despairs ... could you actually say a fan of Ken Reid's Odhams freakery is "conservative" in their tastes? You could argue that some of that material is more modern than today's, and editors wouldn't dare publish it today. Comparing the two, might they not have a fair concern that some of today's stuff is actually a diminishing of the medium?

[Tin Can Tommy]

Most of the stuff in the Dandy artwise is quite traditional with some seemingly less traditionally drawn strips such as Mr Meecher and Nuke Noodle being almost similiar artstylewise to older artists such as David Law. Andy Fanton and Jamie Smart are the only two artists i wouldn't really consider traditional but thats probably a good thing. One of the best things about the Dandy is the differing art styles, there is alot more variety artstylewise in the Dandy than there is in the Beano.

[Raven]

I can't immediately remember Nuke Noodle but I'm bemused that the Mr. Meecher artwork could be described as similar in any way whatsoever to David Law's. Law, in his prime, drew some of the most innovative, stunning pages of humour comic artwork ever. Look at the dynamic, pioneering use of perspective in his classic work. There's no comparison.

But yes, Jamie is a total original.

[Tin Can Tommy]

I can't immediately remember Nuke Noodle but I'm bemused that the Mr. Meecher artwork could be described as similar in any way whatsoever to David Law's. Law, in his prime, drew some of the most innovative, stunning pages of humour comic artwork ever. Look at the dynamic, pioneering use of perspective in his classic work. There's no comparison.

But yes, Jamie is a total original.

i meant in that they both similiarly drew characters at least they look that way to me. They're not that similiar but there are similarities. but not in (as you say) the dynamic, pioneering use of perspective in his classic work more in simply the way characters are drawn.