This was a long time coming. I must be the SLOWEST comic book artist on the planet. And… AND it’s not even a new strip. I’ve been very busy lately, that’s all I can say.
As a comic fan I’m feeling very conflicted these days. On one hand we have all these “great” movies coming out soon that will help promote comics to a larger audience. On the other hand it feels morally corrupt to watch these movies, knowing how the creators have been treated.
I haven’t been buying Marvel or DC for about 3 years now (With one notable exception being Tom Scioli’s issue of Captain America: Hail Hydra). I was pretty overwhelmed by all the event books being put out. It made DC’s books impenetrable and I felt that Marvel was more concerned with getting to the next book rather than creating a satisfying, self-contained story. I also have personal motivations for shifting my allegiance to creator owned comics. I’ve been promoting “Straw Man” for 8 years and through that process I’ve made a lot of friends. Those friends have created great, “one-of-a-kind” books that offer more rewards than those offered by corporate comics. You see I’m supporting an artist, an idea, and a dream for some of these people. The creator loves his creation and he will do all he can to make it work (even if it means working for years for nothing to make his dream come alive).
Corporate comics have had a rich history of denying creators of their creations. From a distance “the comic book” looks like the combined cooperation of several creative individuals. But when you dig deeper you’ll see that often characters were created under duress. With comic genius Jack Kirby you’ll find that he was essentially forced to give up his creative rights to feed his family. Sometimes creations and ideas were outright snatched from artists.
It’s come to my attention that Gary Friedrich, the creator of Ghost Rider, has been sued by Marvel for $17,000. 17,000 from a man who is unemployed and absolutely broke. Shame on you Marvel. I don’t understand all the specifics of the case but I do know that something is absolutely wrong here. You could easily make an argument that Jack Kirby knew he was signing his creations away when he worked for Marvel, but as I understand it Gary Friedrich had tried to defend his creation. Same goes with Steve Gerber, creator of Howard the Duck, who fought tooth and nail against Marvel and was buried under piles of litigation. Jack Kirby felt so passionate about the way Steve was treated that he helped draw “Destroyer Duck” to raise funds to help Steve Gerber’s court case.
Now let’s turn our attention to DC. Forget the convenient fact that DC didn’t do right by Shuster, Siegel, or Kane. We have in recent days seen Alan Moore’s Watchmen characters rehashed for a new series of comics called “Before Watchmen”. From an artistic point of view you must ask “why?”. The work was complete as is. It was the single vision of one artist with one statement. I think it would be just as fool hardy to attempt something called “Before Mona Lisa” which would of course consist of a frowning, teenage Mona Lisa in front of a freshly planted sapling forest. From a legal point of view Alan Moore will be conveyed the rights back to Watchmen whenever the graphic novel goes out of print. The thing is, Watchmen has never gone out of print. Moore never expected the book to last, just like Kirby never expected the Fantastic Four to be more than a fad.
Point is, Marvel and DC don’t care a thing about protecting their creative talent, especially when it involves their bottom line. Why then should I as a consumer support these companies? Every dollar spent on a Marvel or DC comic says “I agree with the way you treat your employees and creators”. What makes this incredibly difficult for casual fans is that it’s hard to recognize that the Big Two are levying this irresponsibility against beloved and well know characters. Who doesn’t want to read the next Watchmen story? Seeing how the original was brilliant, who wouldn’t want to read more of that? Or how about that new Avengers movie coming out? If you had told me as a kid that not only would we get four different solo Avengers movies, but also a fifth movie that put them all together?! That’s more than any child should have the right to dream about.
So I’m coming to a very difficult decision to not see the Avengers in the theaters nor buy “Before Watchmen”. I am insatiably curious about both of these projects so I will probably borrow “Avengers” and “Before Watchmen” from the library when they eventually hit the shelf. The point is Marvel and DC will not get one red cent from me regarding these shameless projects. I’m not going to be a hypocrite and tell people I’ll never view these things, but I feel like I’ve reached a compromise that I can live with. Maybe by that time I’ll have lost interest.
I don’t think my “boycott” will really effect Marvel or DC in the long run. I do think there is a way fans can make a difference. One idea would be to print a short document describing Marvel’s actions on to a sticker and slapping that on to the movie poster. It might remain on the poster long enough for casual film goers to read.
Or we could help change copyright laws. I think if a corporation hires an artist to create a character that the copyright should be split between the publisher and the creator. The creator can self-publish his version of the character and the publisher can continue to publish their version. If the creator loses interest in his creation then he simply has to do nothing. If the creator has a good relationship with the publisher he could choose to work with the publisher indefinitely, for their mutual benefit. It stands to reason that if one version is inferior then sales would drop and the inferior product would be rendered impotent.
I believe that mutual risk is inherent with both the publisher and the artist. The artist invests his creativity, time, and physical effort to pursue a risky venture. A publisher invests it’s time, money, and resources to pursue a risky venture. That means the risk is shared and that the copyright should be shared. Anything else is just a strong-arm to stranglehold creators into giving up their creative rights.
Progressive Enhancement vs Graceful Degradation
December 19th, 2011 | by DavidSo, it’s Christmas and you just got that big 42″ Hi Def Tv with the 3D option. So a couple weeks go by and you’re noticing the 3D just isn’t cutting it. The picture isn’t as sharp and the 3d just doesn’t pop like it did when it’s new. So you call up the company that made the tv and you ask that since you’re TV is still under warranty that you’d like to have the 3d repaired. They tell you that they’d be happy to fix the tv free of charge, but you’ll have re-wrap the tv and ship it directly to the manufacturer, paying for the shipping and handling yourself. By the time it’s over you might end up spending a 100 dollars and be out of a TV for 2 or 3 weeks! Well instead of getting the work done you decide the 3D just isn’t worth the hassle. You’re still able to enjoy the movie in glorious HD and besides it was eating up too much money in batteries for those so-so 3D glasses.
The World Wide Web kinda works like this when it comes to the latest and greatest vs. the tried and true. It’s a good practice as a designer to build in functionality so that as time goes on your work can still be presented in it’s best light, even if it’s not the latest technology. A great example of this would be the text shadow option in css. Some day this will be standard on all browsers. For the moment you need to insert something called a “Web kit” that tells a specific browser what to do. A careful designer would be sure to include a back up should the technology not be available on an older set up. By using good html structure a beautifully designed css website can still function when all of it’s bells and whistles are removed. It’s important that this built in structure remain intact in order to anchor the website just in case a browser has failed to update to the latest version. Other wise your website might just end up being a huge paper weight.
This subject is pretty important. With the advent of mobile web devises it’s never been more critical that designers pay attention to how their website looks in different medias. A website might look amazing in firefox on a laptop monitor but it might fall apart in Internet Explorer on somebodies old xp desktop computer. A designer needs to pay careful attention to how his website will react in almost every environment.
Responsive web design can anticipate these size discrepancies, and depending on the size of the media, restructure the appearance of the website with special css commands that adjusts it’s layout to better suite your device. Sometimes a restaurant will want to emphasize a special deal they are having. Or maybe they’ll want relevant information like a phone number to appear in a big bold font when searching on a mobile device. This can have an astronomical effect on the usefulness of the website and can pay for itself by bringing more business to a business.
To compete in today’s economy it’s absolutely essential that a website cater to as many of those mobile customers as possible. The future of the web is in the palm of your hand, literally. Mobile devices in conjunction with tablet devices are redefining the way we see the web.
Typography is a funny thing. Most of us don’t notice it and very few of know what it is. When it’s bad typography we have a funny feeling that something isn’t right, but we can’t quite put our finger on it. Typography, whether we like it or not, is with us almost every day and everywhere we go. If you’re reading this than you are experiencing some form of typography.
What most people don’t realize is that typography is the subtle art that gives grace to design. It’s that essential ingredient that communicates the intent of the writer by the placement of the text. Web designers and bloggers have unconsciously contributed to bad typography for years, without many resources to implement good print design practices.
Sure designers have used JPGs and proprietary software such as Flash to design at a higher level of quality, but it’s often come at the cost of accessibility and download speed. These days designers have more options with the introduction of the @font-face rule. This allows designers to pick from any font and embed it into the website.
This practice has opened up a whole other can of worms. Using the @font-face rule exposes a font to being downloaded illegally, thus creating an illegal distribution of copyrighted materials. Many free fonts are available that allow for this kind of access. Some high end font foundries will “host” the font and protect it from being downloaded illegally. The options for the designer are now limitless, but with bad practices being in place for so long is it possible for good typography to ever proliferate the web?
If you aren’t aware of it yet, I’ve got a new website up promoting my graphic design business at www.dimlightgraphics.com. I spent a few hours researching which color scheme I wanted to use. I didn’t consciously think about the meaning of those colors, I simply chose the colors that resonated the most with me. But let’s talk about those choices for just a moment.
www.precisionintermedia.com talks a little bit about the colors I’ve chosen:
“Psychology of Color: Gray
Gray is most associated with the practical, timeless, middle-of-the-road, solid things in life. Too much gray leads to feeling mostly nothing; but a bit of gray will add that rock solid feeling to your product. Some shades of gray are associated with old age, death, taxes, depression or a lost sense of direction. Silver is an off-shoot of gray and often associated with giving a helping hand, strong character (sterling in-fact!). ”
and…
“Psychology of Color: Orange
The most flamboyant color on the planet! It’s the color tied most this fun times, happy and energetic days, warmth and organic products. It is also associated with ambition. There is nothing even remotely calm associated with this color. Orange is associated with a new dawn in attitude.”
It’s true that I do have “ambition” and that I’m trying convey “practical and timeless” with my design. So in a way my choices were right on the money considering my intentions. I knew I didn’t want to use red because I’m not a pushy person and green, a color that symbolizes greed, wasn’t my first choice either. Blue is a nice color but I wanted something that was strong and blue didn’t seem to convey that to me. Again the timeless aspect of gray was a quality that I was looking for, so I was happy with that choice.
I did have a friend look at my website and his first impression was, “It’s too dark. The website you built for me is brighter and feels good.” I could understand his perspective. I felt if I made the website look like his then it wouldn’t create the right tone for what I wanted to convey. His website was designed to be inviting, open and friendly. The color scheme is blue and white (it can viewed at www.lobaczchiropractic.com). With my website I wanted to convey a serious “you can trust me” tone. “Practical and timeless” seems to fit that pretty well.
Color is not an exact science. My friend’s perspective of “Dim light Graphics” being too dark is a gut reaction and maybe his opinion is absolutely right. But again he could be completely wrong. That’s the thing about color, it’s subjective. Black in our country can represent morning while the very opposite color can convey the same thing in other parts of the world.
Color has a lot of power and can be used very effectively. It is wise to at least spend some time considering color before committing to any permanent color scheme.
