The State of Le Culture

Yet again, another comics discourse.

I don't think I need to reiterate what has already been brilliantly covered and commentated on by E.B Hutchins and Veronique Emma Houxbois:

https://www.comicsbeat.com/commentary-its-bigger-than-alex-grahams-comic

https://www.patreon.com/posts/graham-crackers-129721609?utm_medium=clipboard_copy&utm_source=copyLink&utm_campaign=postshare_creator&utm_content=join_link

To give a bit of context, just in case these links one day become linkrot:

A white American, who sits in the intersection between indie alternate underground comix art and the fine arts world, makes a short cartoon strip on Instagram. The comic details her grievances over the fact that "mediocre", "poorly-crafted" comics by "mediocre" cartoonists are getting nominated for these prestigious awards. She attributes the cause, the degrading state of the culture, to White Guilt being fearfully performed by judges (who, by virtue of carrying White Guilt, must be white) - fearfully performed lest that they get "cancelled" or "attacked".

I wrote my initial thoughts on Bluesky regarding the comic and her arguments:

I might make a blog post about this (I owe myself some blog posts about comics/publishing topics anyway), but re: the main character comic of the day, I don't understand why - if they have an "issue" with the craft of contemporary comics not reaching their standard, they assign the blame on the "White Guilt" of the judging body instead of either 1) the lack of comics formalism expertise of the judges 2) the lack of artists/critics (aka people who know the craft) in the body who could balance out the non-experts.

But them assigning blame on "White Guilt" implies they think badly-crafted comics are exclusive to non-white creators and that non-white creators' craft in general is so poor that they are judged on a lower standard than white creators in order to qualify for nominations, which is… hmm.

Kinda peripheral to the discourse, but maybe judging bodies should consist of more culturally diverse judges with a balanced weight of expertise (shop owners, scholars, practitioners, editors - I rarely ever see working artists or editors as judges). That would address their issue. But lol.

It's beyond my capacity if certain people are just not very good at articulating or understanding the implication of their arguments. Maybe your craft in comics is better but your craft in thinking isn't. Goodbye.

The links will tell you the name of this Afflicted Artiste, but should the linkrot occur, I don't think it's necessary for me to state her name here. She's not the first and only (white) auteur from the Global North to express this type of bone-headed sentiment. And she's not the first and only auteur to respond to the critique the way that she did. As soon as I saw her affliation to the small batch, fine arts world, I immediately understood. She is a representative member of a species of dominant-culture, privileged, edgy fine arts brainrot. The ones who like to position themselves as counterculture and iconoclastic, but are in actuality reheating the increasingly outdated imperialist, racist, sexist, institutional sort of thinking (and this type of edgelord thinking can only be framed as "bold" "brave" commentary simply because those thoughts are becoming less and less valid and sane in a globalised, multicultural, diverse society). They are about as countercultural as some guy who insists that asbestos is still cool when everyone else has already recognised the risks and moved on to alternative materials. Nobody builds houses out of asbestos anymore, because of woke.

I encountered a lot of this species of asbestos-likers secondhand during my Masters studies, and their presence has become more obvious to me now that I've had more familiarity with the fine arts world. They all act the same way. In fact, I was pretty much counting down the minutes before the Afflicted Artiste responded the way she did and then crashed out the way she did. Not surprised. Not impressed. Just the same old, same old. I don't need to go into it: Veronique's and EB's commentaries say it best.

Before the conversation passed and the Artiste reached the peak of her crashout, I thought about doing a post that critically deconstructs the logic that allowed the Artiste to agree that the argument she proposed was an acceptable one to make, and the logic that the reader needs to agree to in order for them to view the argument as valid. A close reading of the comic in the style of a philosophical essay, if you will. For Statement C to follow, Statements A and B needs to be true.

But then I thought what a waste of time it would be to do this. Me, a Global South Southeast Asian artist, correcting the work of a more privileged peer who should have done their due diligence? Lol. Like I said, it's beyond my capacity if people don't exhibit critical thinking and self-awareness, especially if they position their hoity-toity intellectualism as part of their artistic brand. I would rather spend the time and brainpower instead to make art I like (or more likely, to develop my interior decorating hobby).

I was reminded of a similar incident from two years ago, when the Fran//c1s Roth///bart graphic novel was nominated for the Eisners. Another work from the cult of asbestos. The same trajectory of crashout. I had thought about making a post too, to deconstruct the themes and messaging that allowed this other Artist to believe that making 19th century work like that is still relevant in the 21st century. And again, I concluded that it would be a waste of time for me to undertake the task, for the same reasons.

Even though I've decided to not do either of those close readings, I'm still very much tempted. God knows we need more critical essays in comics. God knows we need more demonstrations of critical thinking. God knows that we need more comics artists to join the fine tradition of artists in other fields making critical commentary on each other's work. But why do all that for work I have no love for? Sure, my decent possession of the necessary skills for commentary and my positionality as a marginalised artist strengthen my suitability for the job. But I personally don't want to do it!!! I am reminded of Toni Morrison's words:

“The function, the very serious function of racism is distraction. It keeps you from doing your work. It keeps you explaining, over and over again, your reason for being. Somebody says you have no language and you spend twenty years proving that you do. Somebody says your head isn’t shaped properly so you have scientists working on the fact that it is. Somebody says you have no art, so you dredge that up. Somebody says you have no kingdoms, so you dredge that up. None of this is necessary. There will always be one more thing.”

I think putting heavy thought and effort into commenting on or close reading a work which doesn't exhibit nor respect that amount of thought and effort from itself or others is a fool's errand. We've moved on from asbestos, y'all.

The most annoying thing is, if I were to choose to do the close reading, that would be of some beneficial contribution to the comics community. But it could be seen as a twisted back-handed form of validation to the cult of asbestos.

Oh you think my work is a waste of time? Well, jokes on you, you wasted your time making that response essay. It's more embarrassing to me as an artist if I am the source of the art that provoked the wastage of everyone's time.

Oh you put so thought and effort to deconstruct my art; that must mean that I actually have something important to say. Some people think that any scientific or medical criticism against asbestos means advocating for asbestos is an intellectual position worth defending.

Distraction, distraction.

Anyway, this post's purpose is to archive my thoughts about this particular discourse. I am sure something like this will come up again in the future. We all know how it works. (shrug) Same old, same old.