Drawn

Ha! I’m going through her ‘slice of life’ comics (for lack of a better term) and totally loving it.

Ha! I’m going through her ‘slice of life’ comics (for lack of a better term) and totally loving it.

Yeah, i am enjoying it too. Art brute is really kool. How do they do that?

Yeah, i am enjoying it too. Art brute is really kool. How do they do that?

I’m liking the looseness of her work.

I’m liking the looseness of her work.

Notorious art, unique……….but i m truly enjoying it.

Notorious art, unique……….but i m truly enjoying it.

Amaazing!! so great, loved this post.

Amaazing!! so great, loved this post.

a bit too unhinhibited for me, thank you.

a bit too unhinhibited for me, thank you.

It really put a smile on my face, thanks!

It really put a smile on my face, thanks!

I love Vanessa Davis’s comics with my entire being.

I love Vanessa Davis’s comics with my entire being.

the comics on her site seem old
does she have a newer one?

the comics on her site seem old
does she have a newer one?

Man, that is some of the most outrageously poor drawing I’ve ever seen, without exception.

Why do so many female (and more than a few males, too) cartoonists get slack for this?

Total garbage.

Man, that is some of the most outrageously poor drawing I’ve ever seen, without exception.

Why do so many female (and more than a few males, too) cartoonists get slack for this?

Total garbage.

Her art is great! I’ve seen her art up close she can draw very well, better than most male artists. This is her art style but the fundamentals of drawing are all there.

Take a look again before making idiotic comments. Any artist can see she knows what shes doing artistically. Just because its not a “super slick art stlye.”

If you can’t tell the difference between poor drawing and a good drawing maybe you should keep your mouth shut. Also, there are many female artists that draw very well that maybe you should educate yourself before making stupid comments.

Her art is great! I’ve seen her art up close she can draw very well, better than most male artists. This is her art style but the fundamentals of drawing are all there.

Take a look again before making idiotic comments. Any artist can see she knows what shes doing artistically. Just because its not a “super slick art stlye.”

If you can’t tell the difference between poor drawing and a good drawing maybe you should keep your mouth shut. Also, there are many female artists that draw very well that maybe you should educate yourself before making stupid comments.

You can’t be serious — you think I don’t know the difference between drawing funamentals and style? I said nothing about her work lacking a “super slick art stlye”. Good drawing has nothing to do with the slickness or “professionalism” of the rendering, as you yourself point out.

Proportion, gesture, shape, texture, composition, linework, etc. — her work exhibits a near total lack of awareness of the building blocks of even the most rudimentary art.

Davis’s work not only lacks fundamentals, but also lacks any personal style. It has neither the consistency of a disciplined artist, nor the quirks of an untrained eccentric — it’s more like the drawings you’d find on the indside of a middle-schooler’s social studies book (which is a description of far too many cartoonists work recently).

Phoebe Gloeckner, Julie Doucet, etc. have real skills out of which a style developed. They are two of the finest drafts(wo)men in the history of comics. Lynda Barry has limited talents but within the scope of those abilities has developed a style nearly as unique as handwriting.

Davis continues the descending line of dreadful cartoonists including the likes of Roberta Gregory, Donna Barr, Marjane Satrapi, Tom Hart, Jeffrey Brown et al. That no one calls the bluff of any of these charlatans is a typical example of the cliquish backscratching that passes for “community” among cartoonists.

You can’t be serious — you think I don’t know the difference between drawing funamentals and style? I said nothing about her work lacking a “super slick art stlye”. Good drawing has nothing to do with the slickness or “professionalism” of the rendering, as you yourself point out.

Proportion, gesture, shape, texture, composition, linework, etc. — her work exhibits a near total lack of awareness of the building blocks of even the most rudimentary art.

Davis’s work not only lacks fundamentals, but also lacks any personal style. It has neither the consistency of a disciplined artist, nor the quirks of an untrained eccentric — it’s more like the drawings you’d find on the indside of a middle-schooler’s social studies book (which is a description of far too many cartoonists work recently).

Phoebe Gloeckner, Julie Doucet, etc. have real skills out of which a style developed. They are two of the finest drafts(wo)men in the history of comics. Lynda Barry has limited talents but within the scope of those abilities has developed a style nearly as unique as handwriting.

Davis continues the descending line of dreadful cartoonists including the likes of Roberta Gregory, Donna Barr, Marjane Satrapi, Tom Hart, Jeffrey Brown et al. That no one calls the bluff of any of these charlatans is a typical example of the cliquish backscratching that passes for “community” among cartoonists.

jerry, I’m really sorry that you feel that way… I respectfully disagree. Vanessa may not be your style, but I think there’s a very big difference between INABILITY to know and practice the basic drawing principles you mention and the conscious DECISION to bend, manipulate, and even break those rules. In my opinion it takes a lot of guts to not “pretty things up”. I really respect those people who can strip their work down to the bare images and semantics to tell their stories. The rawness and immediacy emphasizes meanings in most of those “dreadful cartoonists” work. In other cases, technical abilities may be limited, but I think to write those people off as being unable storytellers is a real shame.

jerry, I’m really sorry that you feel that way… I respectfully disagree. Vanessa may not be your style, but I think there’s a very big difference between INABILITY to know and practice the basic drawing principles you mention and the conscious DECISION to bend, manipulate, and even break those rules. In my opinion it takes a lot of guts to not “pretty things up”. I really respect those people who can strip their work down to the bare images and semantics to tell their stories. The rawness and immediacy emphasizes meanings in most of those “dreadful cartoonists” work. In other cases, technical abilities may be limited, but I think to write those people off as being unable storytellers is a real shame.

Take a good look at those artists that you listed Roberta Gregory, Donna Barr, Marjane Satrapi, Tom Hart, Jeffrey Brown, Lynda Barry & Vanessa Davis, they are all great artists who all have the technical abilities proportion, gesture, shape, texture, composition. It’s all there you just refuse to accept it because they don’t fit the typical mold of an”artist.”

If you actually looked at Vanessa’s body of work there is consistency in her work. And your comment about Vanessa Davis & Roberta Gregory, Donna Barr, Marjane Satrapi, Tom Hart, Jeffrey Brown, Lynda Barry not being a disciplined artist? Are you serious? Do you even know what you are talking about? I think you have seen these artisits work but don’t respect them as artists because of your personal taste of what “an artist should be.” Most of these artists actually have teached or are currently teaching at art schools, so you mean to tell me that they are hired but big name art schools who don’t know the difference between artsists & charlatans. Give me a break.

Take a good look at those artists that you listed Roberta Gregory, Donna Barr, Marjane Satrapi, Tom Hart, Jeffrey Brown, Lynda Barry & Vanessa Davis, they are all great artists who all have the technical abilities proportion, gesture, shape, texture, composition. It’s all there you just refuse to accept it because they don’t fit the typical mold of an”artist.”

If you actually looked at Vanessa’s body of work there is consistency in her work. And your comment about Vanessa Davis & Roberta Gregory, Donna Barr, Marjane Satrapi, Tom Hart, Jeffrey Brown, Lynda Barry not being a disciplined artist? Are you serious? Do you even know what you are talking about? I think you have seen these artisits work but don’t respect them as artists because of your personal taste of what “an artist should be.” Most of these artists actually have teached or are currently teaching at art schools, so you mean to tell me that they are hired but big name art schools who don’t know the difference between artsists & charlatans. Give me a break.

PaulP, I think the fact that “big-time art schools” hire anyone to teach means nothing. Do you really want to know, honestly, what it means? It means: connections, hipness, good buzz, more connections, and “I got published in the NY Times!” Did I mention connections?

The fact is that this is a style, arguably started by such artists as Lynda Barry and Roz Chast; a “faux-naif”, childlike style whose whole point drawing-wise is that it looks like weak (not to say crummy) drawing. So for someone to come along and say the emperor has no drawing skills, well, they’re just stating their tastes.
Let’s face it: no matter how much “skill” YOU feel these artists have(whether it’s incorporated into the level of “finish” in their drawings as published), the art scene–very much including illustration–is totally and inarguably SUBJECTIVE! That’s a plain fact. I have seen people in my neck of the art world(and yeah, I’m an employed artist, have been for almost 20 years)who ARE definitely given a huge pass because they’re well-connected, and their friends–who often are in fact excellent draughtspersons–love them personally and convince themselves their friends have a special “style” and after all, they’re so cool therefore so is any friend of theirs!

Hey, to deny the entire art world-editorial and otherwise is cliquish is silly. It just is. As far as this featured artist is concerned, perhaps she can draw very well, but she’s chosen a style that looks frankly weak. That’s her thing, fine(certainly she’s crying all the way to the bank to cash her check from the NY Times). But I do get tired of there being no discerning alternate voices(or dissention)allowed where styles like this are concerned. I personally have sen it for over 20 years now, almost exclusively by female artists, and I’m kind of tired of it. it sure isn’t “fresh” anymore. But again, everyone–EVERYOBE–is entitled to an opinion. But don’t think the Times won’t move on to the next trendy thing and drop this sort of style eventually. If she draws as well as her friends and admirers think, she’ll change too and do just great. More power to her.

PaulP, I think the fact that “big-time art schools” hire anyone to teach means nothing. Do you really want to know, honestly, what it means? It means: connections, hipness, good buzz, more connections, and “I got published in the NY Times!” Did I mention connections?

The fact is that this is a style, arguably started by such artists as Lynda Barry and Roz Chast; a “faux-naif”, childlike style whose whole point drawing-wise is that it looks like weak (not to say crummy) drawing. So for someone to come along and say the emperor has no drawing skills, well, they’re just stating their tastes.
Let’s face it: no matter how much “skill” YOU feel these artists have(whether it’s incorporated into the level of “finish” in their drawings as published), the art scene–very much including illustration–is totally and inarguably SUBJECTIVE! That’s a plain fact. I have seen people in my neck of the art world(and yeah, I’m an employed artist, have been for almost 20 years)who ARE definitely given a huge pass because they’re well-connected, and their friends–who often are in fact excellent draughtspersons–love them personally and convince themselves their friends have a special “style” and after all, they’re so cool therefore so is any friend of theirs!

Hey, to deny the entire art world-editorial and otherwise is cliquish is silly. It just is. As far as this featured artist is concerned, perhaps she can draw very well, but she’s chosen a style that looks frankly weak. That’s her thing, fine(certainly she’s crying all the way to the bank to cash her check from the NY Times). But I do get tired of there being no discerning alternate voices(or dissention)allowed where styles like this are concerned. I personally have sen it for over 20 years now, almost exclusively by female artists, and I’m kind of tired of it. it sure isn’t “fresh” anymore. But again, everyone–EVERYOBE–is entitled to an opinion. But don’t think the Times won’t move on to the next trendy thing and drop this sort of style eventually. If she draws as well as her friends and admirers think, she’ll change too and do just great. More power to her.

Look I’m not going to deny that the editorial world can be cliquish. And it sucks but guess what?- thats how the damn world works. Dude, I’m an artist who to make a living I have to be a full time graphic designer because I don’t get enough work as an artist, i get passed over all the time for other people with the new “hot style”. I know it sucks but thats life it’s all about who you know or who knows you. There are thousands of good artists out there that get passed over all the time. Thats life you deal with it and move on. I don’t go around faulting or bashing other artists because they got the job over me its hard enough being an artist and getting work.

Also, wouldn’t you help a friend if they needed work. I’m sure you would at least try to help maybe put in a good word somewhere so they would have a chance of getting the job. Guess what if your higher in a company (Owner, CEO or Manager) you get to help alot of your friends with talent or no talent. Thats how it works.

But, could her being chosen by NY Times be clouding your opinion of her work? Do you know for a fact that’s the reason why Vanessa’s was picked for the NY Times, because she knows someone who currently works there???

Look I’m not going to deny that the editorial world can be cliquish. And it sucks but guess what?- thats how the damn world works. Dude, I’m an artist who to make a living I have to be a full time graphic designer because I don’t get enough work as an artist, i get passed over all the time for other people with the new “hot style”. I know it sucks but thats life it’s all about who you know or who knows you. There are thousands of good artists out there that get passed over all the time. Thats life you deal with it and move on. I don’t go around faulting or bashing other artists because they got the job over me its hard enough being an artist and getting work.

Also, wouldn’t you help a friend if they needed work. I’m sure you would at least try to help maybe put in a good word somewhere so they would have a chance of getting the job. Guess what if your higher in a company (Owner, CEO or Manager) you get to help alot of your friends with talent or no talent. Thats how it works.

But, could her being chosen by NY Times be clouding your opinion of her work? Do you know for a fact that’s the reason why Vanessa’s was picked for the NY Times, because she knows someone who currently works there???

You misunderstand me. You’re absolutely right–that stuff–the cliqueish stuff–IS exactly how the world works, yes. I’ve got nothing against success itself, nor “against” any artist not against this woman.

That said, I don’t look at her work and think “Wow! What a cool artist”. *I* think “Hmmm; another faux-naif. pretend(or not?)lousy, “I-draw-like-a-person-who-can’t-draw” artist. Ho-hum, and not worthy of special interest, NY Times or not”. YMMV.

I guess I’m sort of backing up the other guy who thought she’s either incompetent as a draughtsman or deliberately trying to look that way(which to me is a dumb and dumber “style”–again, jmho).

Her being chosen by the Times doesn’t cloud my opinion of her work–but NEITHER do I think that she’s somehow “validated” because she’s in that paper, as you were suggesting.
I never said or thought that it was “nepotism” that she got published; I think it’s something more insidious: an AD at the Times who looks for “cool, hip” styles that are imho getting outdated fast. You’re quite right: there ARE way too many truly good artists, who are I guess screwed because they don’t do drawings that look like they can’t draw for beans. Works for this girl? Great! Truly, I’m sure she’s a nice person(actually, I have no idea, but I’m an optimist)! But I think her drawing is poor.

You also suggested that since some big-deal art schools hire artists like this, that means they’re “good” artists. Ask around—I think you’ll find a lot of people who graduated from art school who had less than fantastic teachers, including people who can’t draw. It happens.
I think her drawing speaks for itself. And btw, Jaime Hernandez is also in the NY Times on a regular basis lately; I’ve been a fan of his since ’83. He’s an excellent draughtsman. IMHO. Good drawing lasts. This stuff will pass away, count on it. I think a lot of people are doing this kind of style very cynically now, frankly–OR, because it’s the only way they can draw.
It’s easier. If you think it’s not, you’re kidding yourself. I know the difference between a child’s scrawl and Picasso, too.

One last thing, PaulP: I know how hard it is to make ANY kind of a living as a working artist, believe me. I’ve had feast & famine…sold off shite to make the rent;I support the right and the hope and the guts of ANYone who does this for a living…yourself included. I hope you make a big success of your career in whatever form you choose. I just don’t like every single artists’ work I see, that’s all. But art isn’t just a mutual admiration society, it’s a job, a calling and and a religion.

You misunderstand me. You’re absolutely right–that stuff–the cliqueish stuff–IS exactly how the world works, yes. I’ve got nothing against success itself, nor “against” any artist not against this woman.

That said, I don’t look at her work and think “Wow! What a cool artist”. *I* think “Hmmm; another faux-naif. pretend(or not?)lousy, “I-draw-like-a-person-who-can’t-draw” artist. Ho-hum, and not worthy of special interest, NY Times or not”. YMMV.

I guess I’m sort of backing up the other guy who thought she’s either incompetent as a draughtsman or deliberately trying to look that way(which to me is a dumb and dumber “style”–again, jmho).

Her being chosen by the Times doesn’t cloud my opinion of her work–but NEITHER do I think that she’s somehow “validated” because she’s in that paper, as you were suggesting.
I never said or thought that it was “nepotism” that she got published; I think it’s something more insidious: an AD at the Times who looks for “cool, hip” styles that are imho getting outdated fast. You’re quite right: there ARE way too many truly good artists, who are I guess screwed because they don’t do drawings that look like they can’t draw for beans. Works for this girl? Great! Truly, I’m sure she’s a nice person(actually, I have no idea, but I’m an optimist)! But I think her drawing is poor.

You also suggested that since some big-deal art schools hire artists like this, that means they’re “good” artists. Ask around—I think you’ll find a lot of people who graduated from art school who had less than fantastic teachers, including people who can’t draw. It happens.
I think her drawing speaks for itself. And btw, Jaime Hernandez is also in the NY Times on a regular basis lately; I’ve been a fan of his since ’83. He’s an excellent draughtsman. IMHO. Good drawing lasts. This stuff will pass away, count on it. I think a lot of people are doing this kind of style very cynically now, frankly–OR, because it’s the only way they can draw.
It’s easier. If you think it’s not, you’re kidding yourself. I know the difference between a child’s scrawl and Picasso, too.

One last thing, PaulP: I know how hard it is to make ANY kind of a living as a working artist, believe me. I’ve had feast & famine…sold off shite to make the rent;I support the right and the hope and the guts of ANYone who does this for a living…yourself included. I hope you make a big success of your career in whatever form you choose. I just don’t like every single artists’ work I see, that’s all. But art isn’t just a mutual admiration society, it’s a job, a calling and and a religion.

For what it’s worth I think that, for example, Adrian Tomine (whose style is the antithesis of Davis’s) is also a pretty poor artist. Totally uninspired, bland work. Clean, yes, disciplined, yes, but nothing there. And I don’t mean in a Robert Bresson sort of way…

And speaking of cliques (which are very real in the illustration “community” and *especially* real in “team-comix”) he’s someone whose success is almost entirely owed to either the naivite of his clients and/or well-connected friends. His covers and work for THE NEW YORKER are the weakest that magazine has published since the 1980s.

I’m sure he and Davis are wonderful people, though, sorry if I offended any of their former dates or friends.

For what it’s worth I think that, for example, Adrian Tomine (whose style is the antithesis of Davis’s) is also a pretty poor artist. Totally uninspired, bland work. Clean, yes, disciplined, yes, but nothing there. And I don’t mean in a Robert Bresson sort of way…

And speaking of cliques (which are very real in the illustration “community” and *especially* real in “team-comix”) he’s someone whose success is almost entirely owed to either the naivite of his clients and/or well-connected friends. His covers and work for THE NEW YORKER are the weakest that magazine has published since the 1980s.

I’m sure he and Davis are wonderful people, though, sorry if I offended any of their former dates or friends.

This is all just careerist whining. You can tell by all the snide jibes about “laughing all the way to the bank” and her “friends” and “dates.” Man up and work harder. The NYT piece has beautiful washes in it, there’s nothing “faux-naive” about it, you don’t really know the words that you are using. You probably think “Dream and Lie of Franco” is faux-naive and bad drawing too.

This is all just careerist whining. You can tell by all the snide jibes about “laughing all the way to the bank” and her “friends” and “dates.” Man up and work harder. The NYT piece has beautiful washes in it, there’s nothing “faux-naive” about it, you don’t really know the words that you are using. You probably think “Dream and Lie of Franco” is faux-naive and bad drawing too.

Thanks, but it’s you, ChrisD!, who’s misunderstanding the words I’m using: when I referred to “laughing all the way to the bank” I was paying this woman tribute, not sneering at her. Admittedly and obviously internet writing can’t always reveal the emotional intent in the phrasing–I was actually saying that regardless of whether I or another person think she’s a lousy draftsman(and I do), what should she care? She’s making money, and doing well. I actually wish her all the best on a purely human level; I’m not a an art facist, for christ’s sake. I also said “More power to her!” and I MEANT it. Understand? I don’t “hate” this girl because she’s a crummy artist, but that’s still my take on her. It’s guys like you who whine and sneer and get ludicrously defensive over what’s simply another person’s artistic opinion.
I didn’t say shit about “dates” either. And I can tell that the ‘Nerd’ fellow whose opinion inspired such instant anger feels as I do, pretty much.

And sorry, bub, but if this style isn’t “faux-naif” than there iis no such thing. However, there is and it is. Either that or she can’t draw. Period.
btw, I draw for living each and every day.; draftsmanship–the excellence of–is very important to me personally. I also like different styles. As Nerd pointed out, there are technically “clean” and tight styles that seem much more sophisticated than this that artists such as the Nerd also eschew(look that one up); I happen to think Tomine, while clearly derivative, manages to redeem himself with his writing and overall technique, but many artists dismiss him for the reasons stated above, too.

Thanks, but it’s you, ChrisD!, who’s misunderstanding the words I’m using: when I referred to “laughing all the way to the bank” I was paying this woman tribute, not sneering at her. Admittedly and obviously internet writing can’t always reveal the emotional intent in the phrasing–I was actually saying that regardless of whether I or another person think she’s a lousy draftsman(and I do), what should she care? She’s making money, and doing well. I actually wish her all the best on a purely human level; I’m not a an art facist, for christ’s sake. I also said “More power to her!” and I MEANT it. Understand? I don’t “hate” this girl because she’s a crummy artist, but that’s still my take on her. It’s guys like you who whine and sneer and get ludicrously defensive over what’s simply another person’s artistic opinion.
I didn’t say shit about “dates” either. And I can tell that the ‘Nerd’ fellow whose opinion inspired such instant anger feels as I do, pretty much.

And sorry, bub, but if this style isn’t “faux-naif” than there iis no such thing. However, there is and it is. Either that or she can’t draw. Period.
btw, I draw for living each and every day.; draftsmanship–the excellence of–is very important to me personally. I also like different styles. As Nerd pointed out, there are technically “clean” and tight styles that seem much more sophisticated than this that artists such as the Nerd also eschew(look that one up); I happen to think Tomine, while clearly derivative, manages to redeem himself with his writing and overall technique, but many artists dismiss him for the reasons stated above, too.

Men will always find a way to negate women’s successes. Oh, she just got ahead because of A, B and C. How’d SHE get in the NYT? Give the editor a blowjob? Your complaints are such a cliché. Yeah, I really believe you wish her well, JD.

Hey, I’d really love to see some drawings from jerrythenerd or JD. Do you guys have websites I can laugh at? I mean, look at? I’m sure your art is REALLY GOOD, since you draw for a living and all.

Men will always find a way to negate women’s successes. Oh, she just got ahead because of A, B and C. How’d SHE get in the NYT? Give the editor a blowjob? Your complaints are such a cliché. Yeah, I really believe you wish her well, JD.

Hey, I’d really love to see some drawings from jerrythenerd or JD. Do you guys have websites I can laugh at? I mean, look at? I’m sure your art is REALLY GOOD, since you draw for a living and all.

“Brute”? I’m not sure if that’s the right word. A fiew years back this would not have appealed to me, but I just read “Spaniel Rage” and I loved it.
Sure, her art’s not “slick” but she has sophistication in the sense that she has her own voice. That, in my book, makes for good art. Finding something so honest and entertaining has left me pining for more.

“Brute”? I’m not sure if that’s the right word. A fiew years back this would not have appealed to me, but I just read “Spaniel Rage” and I loved it.
Sure, her art’s not “slick” but she has sophistication in the sense that she has her own voice. That, in my book, makes for good art. Finding something so honest and entertaining has left me pining for more.