From: aldavi01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Arlie Davis)
Subject: Re: Anti-cartooning
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 21:21:21 GMT
Reply-To: Arlie Davis <aldavi01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>
Organization: University of Louisville

In <1jusivINNkkp@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> at808@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Paul Corrigan) writes:

> Here is an article we are not likely to see soon under the heading
> "Animation" in any encyclopedia. But then, maybe we will. Who knows?
> Animation:
>    THE NEW CARTOONS. In the 1990's a new type of cartoons generally
> known as anti-cartoons or cartoons of the absurd emerged in the U.S.
> The trtansition to this form can be seen in Ralph Bakshi's "Mighty
> Mouse" and Matt Groening's "The Simpsons". The mature absurdist
> cartoons are best represented by the cartoons on MTV's "Liquid 
> Television" and John Kricfalusi's "Ren and Stimpy".

Generally known?  Never heard the term "anti-cartoon" before.  Not a
bad term, not a great term.

>    Like the postwar French theatre of the absurd, which reflected
> the cynicism of the post-war era and the senselessness, in the view
> of Samuel Beckett, Eugene Ionesco, and other playwrights, of the
> human condition, the absurd cartoons reflect the cynicism and despair
> of the post-Cold War era and the senselessness of life in the late
> 20th century.

People tend to impose what they think and feel on what they observe,
especially in the arts, and especially those arts which do not seem to
have an immediate, clear and simple meaning.  Absurd theatre qualifies
for this.  But R&S?  Maybe, maybe not.

> The absurd theatre and the absurd cartoons have the same message:

Careful; I count five different messages below.  Best to say messages when
one means messages, no?  And best to give each the air-time it deserves?

> that life is pointless;

Life is pointless?  Life and the world are strange and big, but life isn't
pointless -- for everyone.  Some people are stuck.  Some people are plowing
ahead, doing the same things they've always done, but very happy about it,
because they like those things.  And a great deal of people are neither, and
are having a great time in general.

> that those that still uphold conventional values are stupid (like Stimpy)
> or hypocritical (like the characters on "The Simpsons");

Do you really think that Stimpy is that stupid?  Even compared to Ren?
Stimpy /seems/ stupid, but he still tries to do the Right Thing.  And quite
often, Ren is almost evil by comparison.

I almost agree with you on the Simpsons.  I think they are a great example of
a dysfunctional and stereotypically-American family.  However, my
disagreement comes later:

> that modern society and Keynesian capitalism have stripped people of their
> individuality and common sense;

Nonsense.  Capitalism, /true/ capitalism, is a Good Thing.  The problem is
that we do not operate under capitalism.  Capitalism, socialism, communism,
and even a few other isms might have worked, /if/ they used the way they were
meant to be used, and if they weren't weakened and tainted by mixing with
other systems.

Nothing "strips people of their individuality".  Some conditions allow it
to prosper, some situations even /force/ it, and some are indifferent to it.
But there is no way to institutionalize and "mass market" those kind of
situations.

"Common sense"?  Ha.  It isn't common, and it doesn't make sense, and it's
been around forever and it always will.  Nothing has changed.

> that, therefore, everyone today is either mad (Ren) or naive and stupid
> (Stimpy);

Since this is based on the previous statement, and I don't buy the previous
one, this one goes, too.

> and that communication between modern people is impossible.

/This/ is plausible, except for the adjective "modern".  What makes us
different from the people in the past?  We don't communicate any better or
worse, on a person-to-person level.  In some ways we communicate better
(this network is a decent example) but no better on a personal level.

Big deal.  Same as always; nothing new under the sun.

>    The two also use the same devices. Both have either ridiculous
> or even non-existent plots (as life is absurd and pointless); characters
> lose their realism and individuality (as modern people have),

Excuse me?  Lost their realism?  Explain what you mean -- you have used words
in a way that is unfamiliar to me.  "Realism" applies to reproductions and
facsimiles of reality, of life.  How can reality not be real?

R&S isn't very realistic, but neither are many cartoons, or especially your
"anti-cartoons".

> becoming
> either amoral psychotics (like Ren and Bart Simpson)

Amoral psychotics?  Bart's a slightly annoying brat, Ren may be psychotic but
not amoral.

> or automatons (the couple in "Rubber Nipples"),

Automatons?  Hardly.  The person who bought the rubber nipples tried them on,
tested them, and decided to buy them.  All in all, a healthy character.

> as people are either insane, robotic, or both;

No sir, didn't like it.  You are tending to unjustified extremes.

> dialogue is senseless and cliche-filled, to reflect the
> meaninglessness of modern speech;

You keep saying that modern life/speech/etc. is meaningless, but I say
this is your own view superimposed on what you are watching.  Life is
not meaningless for me, nor a great deal of other people.  Many things
/around/ us are pretty strange, pointless, or stupid, but we make our own
reality, no?

> and normal values are torn to shreds
> (witness Powdered Toast Man, the reflection of the modern hero, pledging
> as President to relieve people of their rights; message: there are no
> more heroes). 

"Normal values torn to shreds"!  Such harsh, emotional words.
First of all, I grew out of the idea that there /is/ a set of "normal
values" a long time ago.  There are certain sets of ideas and moral/ethical
codes which, when used consistently, produce Good Things.  Doesn't mean
there is a One True System, though.

One of the reasons I watch cartoons is to see a different, self-consistent
world.  Ren & Stimpy have it.  Loony tunes definitely have it.

>    It is perhaps to be expected that two times and places (post-war
> France and 1990's America) with similar amounts of despair and feelings
> of meaninglessness after the defeat of 

Having never lived in post-war France, I couldn't tell you.  And, from
your signature ("HHS Class of '94"), I'll guess that you haven't, either.
Best not to second-guess, eh?

> of evil would produce such similar art forms. It is also to be expected
> that both would be shocking in their day (but of course, they were
> not meant to reassure; they were meant to shake us up.)

You mean they are meant to do anything at all??  All of them, all of the
absurd plays, and R&S?  No, I would say they are there as kind of a
cultural self-observation, a big "Wow, that's neat."  And it's also a
communication to those who know (or are beginning to realize) the way
things are.

Because, if the world is pointless, what's the point in telling everyone
directly and spoiling their fun?

> We may also
> predict that absurdism in cartoons will die a natural death as times
> improve, as absurdism did in the theatre in the 1960's. But we may
> expect the influence of the absurd to remain in cartoons for some
> time to come.

Hmm, good.  Conventional cartoons bore me to tears.

-- 
lrwx------   1 aldavi01 emacsstu       9 Jun  6 12:43 .signature -> /dev/null
Newsgroups: alt.tv.ren-n-stimpy