Thank you for this...Personally, the original has always been my least favorite Claremont era X-Men cover...Nefaria was so awkwardly placed. I really enjoy your take on it- having them come barfed out of his mouth is great.
This is really funny, and a cool twist on the original. And I agree with Alex that the inking works really well.
But can I just ask something, in the submission guidelines it says, "this isn’t a parody cover site. There’s nothing wrong with parody but it’s a different thing then what this blog is about. Hopefully that makes things crystal clear." Does this not count as a parody? I'm not trying to have a go at Dan's work, which I really like, but I'm just a bit confused about this. I've had a few ideas for submissions, but had thought maybe they'd be classed as parodies, but would be greatful if Robert was able to clear up what he sees as the definition of a parody cover.
Again, I'm not pouring scorn on Dan's work, I'd just like some clarification, if possible. Thanks all! :-)
It's a fair question, Paul. It's one that I've given a lot of thought too and was half expecting. It will take me a little while to give it a good answer and I am at work, so let me get back to you later on tonight.
When I wrote those guidelines I thought that parody was pretty black and white. I was trying to specify that the intention of the site was a change in artistic style, but not content. Much like a song that is covered, the tempo or voice might change, but the words would pretty much stay the same. It would be ok to cover Michael Jackson's "Beat It", but I wasn't looking for someone doing a parody like Weird Al's, "Eat It". It's just a different thing.
To continue the analogy, I do get covers where a most of the song's integrity is there but a word or two gets changed for comedic purposes. Does that stay within the general boundaries I set up? It gets murky. That leaves me in position in trying to decide how much a comic cover has to be changed for comedic reasons before it becomes a parody. It's a strange thing to have to do and I feel like a cop doing it. In this case, Dan pushed things a bit to poke fun at Gil Kane's awkward composition. Does that make it a parody? Perhaps, but when I look at what is actually changed, it's rather minimal. He changed a word of dialogue and tucked Storm's head into Count Nefaria's mouth.
I find that defining when exactly something becomes a parody is about as futile as drawing a distinct line between erotic art and porn. The extremes are easy, but the stuff in between can get tricky. I do the best I can and try to stay consistent, but the results can and do get argued.
Thanks for taking the time to reply Robert. I read your response with interest.
I guess when the comedic changes drastically alter the overall message of the cover, that is when it starts to become a parody. In retrospect, I think Dan's cover simply highlights the silliness of the original. As you say, he has actually changed very little. (It's in the same vein as the recent Uncanny X-men #1 cover, which while initially seeming like parody, in fact was remarkably faithful to the original).
As you say, parody is a hard think to pinpoint exactly, but it was useful to hear your views on the subject.
Wow, if only all internet talk back was this intelligently debated. Robert and Paul, those comments were both beautifully said.
Ironically I'm not a fan of parody either and yet I see where both of my X-men covers come so close. I guess I just like using this forum to comment on elements of the original compositios in a satirical way, but I usually try to use what is already not working or in question against itself, rather than turning all the characters into bunny's. That type of thing feels more like useless parody to me. But it's been fun to talk more about the blurry line.
Thanks again Robert for posting this cover, and hosting this discussion.
Oh wow. When I made reference to the X-men #1 cover in my previous post, I hadn't actually noticed that it was also by you Dan! That's been my favourite cover on this blog since it was posted!
I think that the strength of your cover versions is that I now cannot look at the originals without all the elements that you've picked up on being glaringly obvious! As you say, you've only really highlighted what is already there, rather than shoe-horning in non-existent comedic elements.
I find this "debate" very interesting- how to make an original statement based on someone else's artwork- putting yourself into the piece while paying respect to the original without completely subverting it... it's a very tough space to fill... I kinda feel like it's not so much a question of parody as it is a question of respect for the original material while putting your own original views onto it. Parody subverts, while a "cover" is executed with respect for the original. However, there is grey area in between.
What I don't understand are the people who do pretty much a straight-forward cover with very little alteration- redrawing a cover in a different inking style is like playing a Beatles song on a stratocaster instead of a Les Paul- What's the point?
Oh man! I really like this take a lot.
ReplyDeleteI like it too. The inking is really aggressive and the expressions are even more dramatic than the original.
ReplyDeleteThank you for this...Personally, the original has always been my least favorite Claremont era X-Men cover...Nefaria was so awkwardly placed. I really enjoy your take on it- having them come barfed out of his mouth is great.
ReplyDeleteThis is really funny, and a cool twist on the original. And I agree with Alex that the inking works really well.
ReplyDeleteBut can I just ask something, in the submission guidelines it says, "this isn’t a parody cover site. There’s nothing wrong with parody but it’s a different thing then what this blog is about. Hopefully that makes things crystal clear." Does this not count as a parody? I'm not trying to have a go at Dan's work, which I really like, but I'm just a bit confused about this. I've had a few ideas for submissions, but had thought maybe they'd be classed as parodies, but would be greatful if Robert was able to clear up what he sees as the definition of a parody cover.
Again, I'm not pouring scorn on Dan's work, I'd just like some clarification, if possible. Thanks all! :-)
It's a fair question, Paul. It's one that I've given a lot of thought too and was half expecting. It will take me a little while to give it a good answer and I am at work, so let me get back to you later on tonight.
ReplyDeleteWhoops. "To", not "too".
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhen I wrote those guidelines I thought that parody was pretty black and white. I was trying to specify that the intention of the site was a change in artistic style, but not content. Much like a song that is covered, the tempo or voice might change, but the words would pretty much stay the same. It would be ok to cover Michael Jackson's "Beat It", but I wasn't looking for someone doing a parody like Weird Al's, "Eat It". It's just a different thing.
ReplyDeleteTo continue the analogy, I do get covers where a most of the song's integrity is there but a word or two gets changed for comedic purposes. Does that stay within the general boundaries I set up? It gets murky. That leaves me in position in trying to decide how much a comic cover has to be changed for comedic reasons before it becomes a parody. It's a strange thing to have to do and I feel like a cop doing it. In this case, Dan pushed things a bit to poke fun at Gil Kane's awkward composition. Does that make it a parody? Perhaps, but when I look at what is actually changed, it's rather minimal. He changed a word of dialogue and tucked Storm's head into Count Nefaria's mouth.
I find that defining when exactly something becomes a parody is about as futile as drawing a distinct line between erotic art and porn. The extremes are easy, but the stuff in between can get tricky. I do the best I can and try to stay consistent, but the results can and do get argued.
Thanks for taking the time to reply Robert. I read your response with interest.
ReplyDeleteI guess when the comedic changes drastically alter the overall message of the cover, that is when it starts to become a parody. In retrospect, I think Dan's cover simply highlights the silliness of the original. As you say, he has actually changed very little. (It's in the same vein as the recent Uncanny X-men #1 cover, which while initially seeming like parody, in fact was remarkably faithful to the original).
As you say, parody is a hard think to pinpoint exactly, but it was useful to hear your views on the subject.
Wow, if only all internet talk back was this intelligently debated. Robert and Paul, those comments were both beautifully said.
ReplyDeleteIronically I'm not a fan of parody either and yet I see where both of my X-men covers come so close. I guess I just like using this forum to comment on elements of the original compositios in a satirical way, but I usually try to use what is already not working or in question against itself, rather than turning all the characters into bunny's. That type of thing feels more like useless parody to me. But it's been fun to talk more about the blurry line.
Thanks again Robert for posting this cover, and hosting this discussion.
Dan
Oh wow. When I made reference to the X-men #1 cover in my previous post, I hadn't actually noticed that it was also by you Dan! That's been my favourite cover on this blog since it was posted!
ReplyDeleteI think that the strength of your cover versions is that I now cannot look at the originals without all the elements that you've picked up on being glaringly obvious! As you say, you've only really highlighted what is already there, rather than shoe-horning in non-existent comedic elements.
I look forwarded to seeing more of your covers!
Note how Rob managed to steer the discussion over to porn.
ReplyDeleteI prefer the term, "erotic art".
ReplyDeleteI find this "debate" very interesting- how to make an original statement based on someone else's artwork- putting yourself into the piece while paying respect to the original without completely subverting it... it's a very tough space to fill... I kinda feel like it's not so much a question of parody as it is a question of respect for the original material while putting your own original views onto it. Parody subverts, while a "cover" is executed with respect for the original. However, there is grey area in between.
ReplyDeleteWhat I don't understand are the people who do pretty much a straight-forward cover with very little alteration- redrawing a cover in a different inking style is like playing a Beatles song on a stratocaster instead of a Les Paul- What's the point?
Man, this one's a million laughs. Hats off, Dan!
ReplyDelete