tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post5761816151880916607..comments2024-03-28T21:17:45.398-05:00Comments on A MOMENT OF CEREBUS: "Life is just full of little frustrations for you, isn't it?"A Moment Of Cerebushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02718525538144698138noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2837001751311078781.post-73494178542603421512020-05-05T22:27:44.093-05:002020-05-05T22:27:44.093-05:00Matt: pulling from the FA interview, Dave says thi...Matt: pulling from the FA interview, Dave says this about inking: "An inker, to me, is a very functional, mechanical kind of thing. [...] Gerhard's not an inker, Gerhard's an artist." Which sounds to me like at the time, Dave made a pretty clear distinction between inking and art (ala the 'Chasing Amy' running joke of everyone calling the inker a 'tracer'). I wonder if Dave still agrees with the underlying principle of this, given his own focus for the last fifteen years, with his visual efforts going to an exploration of the great photorealist inking techniques - with much of his own work literally tracing images and then deploying his technique on it. I personally have a very broad definition of art, and I do think that his documented journey of the medium (which I recall first seeing hints of in a piece he did for the Comics Journals "Cartoonists on Comics" special) ABSOLUTELY falls under the umbrella of art, but...<br /><br />In other words, is inking art? Is only SOME inking art? And if there is a distinction, Is intent a big part of that distinction?Dave Koppermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09292071349686573917noreply@blogger.com