I generally hold to the idea that meaning in art is generated at the intersection of art and viewer, and that any reaction to a work of art is fundamentally valid, as the purpose is *that *we react to the art, and not specifically how we react to it.
This thread is making me question my premises.
…that frame is one of my personal favourite things on the internet. Randall is a creative genius, not a creep.
And of course who can forget time?
http://geekwagon.net/projects/xkcd1190/
That kept everyone occupied here at the dope (and elsewhere on the net) for months.
Oh, the premise is correct, but it can probably also be taken up further and towards the assertion that if Freddie was indeed correct in saying “if you see it, darling, it’s there” ; that is to say if the range of emotions or reactions to a given piece of art is only limited by the number of its viewers each of which is able to ascribe a different meaning to the piece (or part of the piece) and see it under a different light as each of them interprets it through their own prism ; then the fact that **you **do see a particular “it” in cases where that “it” is not bleeding obvious is perhaps more a reflection of the viewer than it is of the art or the artist.
**Incubus **is in the general vicinity of fucking creepy ITT, is what I’m driving at.
Here’s a nice article about why some many love him: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/03/14/techs-favorite-cartoonist-enters-mainstream-publishing/?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=TE_TFC_20140317&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1388552400000&bicmet=1420088400000
I agree with the OP. He is creepy. He draws these cartoons for kids but his characters are always naked. Someone should call the internet police on him.
Surely you must mean “Wuv”, with an Earth “W”…?
THIS CONCEPT OF “WUV” CONFUSES AND INFURIATES US!!
Maybe someone wrote a book about it.
Yes, he’s sometimes creepy. He does that on purpose, because creepy can be funny.
I wonder (wonder) who…
I agree completely. I was the “nice guy” for years, and never really thought about how unfair and manipulative I was being, both to the target of my affections and to myself. That cartoon makes me a little uncomfortable because I have to acknowledge that I was being an asshole, but it’s also grimly funny in the way it spins out to the logical conclusion of such a relationship. It may be that Randall was like that for a while, and so has particularly good insight into that sort of personality, but I don’t think the cartoon is creepy. Just very, very uncomfortable to some of its readers.
Incubus, has it ever dawned on you to actually see if there might be people who agree with your opinions before stating them so absolutely? At least with your other thread, I thought maybe you’d been reading the snark boards’ opinions of the the Dope, and didn’t realize that most of us didn’t agree.
I am, of course, giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn’t know that most Dopers would disagree with you.
He also makes a pretty clear statement about “nice guys” in ‘Friends’.
They did, but it’s long and boring.
Thanks for this! I’ve preordered ‘What If?’ and I hadn’t known about it before reading this article.
And for the record, I find his comics hilarious, challenging, human, deeply kind, and thought-provoking by turns, but I have never once gotten a creepy vibe off him or his work.
Q.E.D.
FYI, you are responding to a post from eight years ago, with a link to a comic from before that OP.
Of course he is. How else could he maintain the integrity of the thread’s timeline? If he quoted a newer cartoon, the OP wouldn’t be able to respond to it 8 years ago!