What the heck?
Mar. 8th, 2006 08:03 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Comic strips being outsourced... I knew Doonesbury hasn't been drawn by Trudeau for quite a while; Shoe isn't done by the original guy any more; and now it turns out Rose Is Rose is now "Created by Pat Brady; By Don Wimmer"?!
Who the heck is Don Wimmer? Will this depressing outsourcing craze never end? Are these things just franchises or brands now, to be carried on regardless, even after the original creator decides to stop doing them for whatever reason?
Ugh. Just when I thought the world couldn't get any more soulless. I don't know why, but I'm just finding this oddly creepy.
Who the heck is Don Wimmer? Will this depressing outsourcing craze never end? Are these things just franchises or brands now, to be carried on regardless, even after the original creator decides to stop doing them for whatever reason?
Ugh. Just when I thought the world couldn't get any more soulless. I don't know why, but I'm just finding this oddly creepy.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-08 05:00 pm (UTC)from Doonesbury.com FAQs
Date: 2006-03-08 05:30 pm (UTC)A: False. The strip is currently being produced the same way it has been for over 35 years. Trudeau writes the strip alone, and then does tight pencil drawings. The drawings are then either shipped or faxed to his assistant Don Carlton, who traces over Trudeau's finished drawings in ink. The rumor that Trudeau no longer draws the strip was started by Entertainment Weekly. When the magazine subsequently learned that the writer of the piece had wildly exaggerated Carlton's role, it printed a retraction and apology. By then, of course, the damage to Trudeau's reputation had been done, proving once again that a lie does indeed circle the globe before the truth can get its pants on. The irony of the episode was that after years of being blamed for the artwork in Doonesbury, Trudeau suddenly found himself unable to get credit for it.
sorry, couldn't help riffing on the Beautiful South reference...
Date: 2006-03-08 06:46 pm (UTC)Unless the artist is good as gold and stupid as mud, yes. Breathed and Watterson metaphorically left a considerable pile of money on the table for their decisions to end their strips. Disney *could* have transitioned to a different corporate logo/identity decades ago, but continues to fight tooth and nail to keep Mickey Mouse out of the public domain, and continues to rake in cash they otherwise would have let go because of it. Scott Adams for example has unabashedly gone for whatever makes the most money of his creation.
Now, that said, I'm all for art for art's sake. In fact, I vastly prefer ephemeral expressions of art since those can only be exploited as directly experienced when they happened. It also always irritates me when an artist gets more focus than their art; they are a messenger for a muse, and I really don't care about the messenger, I just want the message.
In an ideal world, art would be free and artists would get by on their day jobs. However, we're soaking in a capitalist nightmare, not an ideal world.
Re: sorry, couldn't help riffing on the Beautiful South reference...
Date: 2006-03-09 04:44 am (UTC)I don't know. I think in my ideal world, artists could make a living doing what they're good at -- art would BE their day job. (That's assuming anyone needs a "day job" in said ideal world.)
Of course, I've worked in a place where artists can do that... and video games development companies are NOTHING LIKE an ideal world. Hmmm.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-08 08:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-08 08:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-08 09:04 pm (UTC)I did not know that about MacNelly! Now I'm sad.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-08 11:51 pm (UTC)