stambo42's forum posts

#1 Posted by stambo42 (155 posts) - - Show Bio

In addition to being a comic enthusiast, I'm a practicing portrait/ figurative artist, and really I just can't stand the way faces are drawn (or not drawn) in most Manga. I'm also alienated by people who fetishize other cultures to the exclusion of any other interests, and even more so when their interest in the other culture is really only in their pop aspects. I know this doesn't describe all manga fans, but it did describe the one I had to live with for a large portion of my life. I'll also say the particular brand of sexism that manifests in some Anime is particularly unnerving to me. I've been able to enjoy some Anime, but it often seems to me that the more banal and terrible a Manga is, the more it gets fetishized as pure mana by a certain fan base. I can't speak for the comic community, but I spend a lot of time frustrated with the sexism and bad writing that our medium is plagued by, and I know that most of us over a certain age want to see better from it, rather than putting Liefeld on a pedestal.

#2 Posted by stambo42 (155 posts) - - Show Bio

Just finished 1984, part of my ongoing project of filling in the blanks I missed in High School. At the very least, it has given me a more concise means by which to point out the degeneration of popular music over the past 40 years.

#3 Posted by stambo42 (155 posts) - - Show Bio

Moore is a very smart man with interests in what are generally considered fringe politics and spirituality. That doesn't make you crazy, just specialized in your interests. Miller is a man of at best average intelligence who for some unknown reason hates women and brown people. That usually isn't considered "crazy" in America, but it does make you dangerous.

#4 Posted by stambo42 (155 posts) - - Show Bio

Morpheus apologizes to Matthew, Sandman #68.

#5 Edited by stambo42 (155 posts) - - Show Bio

Creating life, where we discover that if Superman did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him. It was beautiful. I might have cried a little.

I also love where Lex has to draw his eyebrow back on.

#6 Posted by stambo42 (155 posts) - - Show Bio

I went with music, because unlike the others, impressive talent, skill, or vision are often actually detriments to a self sustaining career, or other definitions of "success".

#7 Posted by stambo42 (155 posts) - - Show Bio

When I saw the Imperial probe droid in the first panel, I figured it was a one off reference for fun, but it looks like they're sticking with it? Is DC also owned by Disney now?

#8 Edited by stambo42 (155 posts) - - Show Bio

@veshark: Haha, yes I did draw my profile pic, and yes I did go to art school, but It's hard to say I had formal training. They taught me how to talk and defend myself, and gave me space to develop ideas. There are places you can still go to get Academic art training, the there is illustration school, but I went to neither of these. Most of my drafting and rendering skill is training I've given myself. In high school I took classes with the guy who painted the tristar Pegasus and I once modeled for a portrait artist named Daniel Greene. Neither of these represented the kind of rigor that goes into formal Academic schooling, but I learned a lot through observation.

#9 Posted by stambo42 (155 posts) - - Show Bio

There is a lot that is good here, the main things I would work on is fine tuning anatomy and playing with dramatic angles more. The story reads and flows well, so that you don't have to worry about. Textures are also good. Overall your figures are pretty solid, but little things like face symmetry and proportions- eyes at the halfway point of the head etc, keep this stuff at the front of your mind. As for angles, imagine the second panel on the first page rotated 30 degrees to the right... Now Cap is really leaning over Wolvie, the hit feels that much harder, and that power becomes part of the story you're telling. Your torsos are "thick" for Comic trends, they don't narrow at the waits much, but than again, that just means they look like actual strongmen as opposed to body builders.

#10 Posted by stambo42 (155 posts) - - Show Bio

There is truth in much of what he is saying, though he's oversimplifying a great deal, and where information is deficient, he's assuming the possibilities that best fit his world view.

Africa does have the most genetically diverse population on the planet. So diverse that I believe most "black" Africans actually have more in common genetically with Europeans and Asians than they do with Khoisans, a brown skinned group from the Southern half of the continent. "Race as a construct" folks will be quick to point this out.

The Egyptian or Kemetic thing is shaky. Obviously the current majority in Egypt is middle eastern, mostly Arab in origin. Kemet, is what ancient Egyptians referred to their kingdom as- rather KMT, as with many early Semitic languages, it lacks vowels. They did tend to paint themselves Brown, though not "black" there is some contention as to whether the Classical name for KMT meant "Land of black soil" or "Land of the Blacks", as well as what "black" meant to Classical Europeans (Greeks and Romans. I don't think there is a solid conclusion on the skin color of the people of KMT,certainly they did come up from the south, Nubia, as it were- but what that actually says about their ethnic or genetic identity is uncertain, as for most of human history the Sahara (even in its smaller, younger days) has been a major obstacle to migration, and the mingling and spreading of bloodlines. They were darker than Europeans, probably darker than most Arabs, but I doubt they were West African dark. Given the stated genetic diversity of Africa, it may be healthy to assume that they were ethnically distinct from the West African ethnicity familiar to most Americans (who are in turn distinct from the Khoisans and the Pygmies), but at the same time wholly African, at least for the early dynasties.

This poster really needs to decide what it means to be "African" in his definition- you can talk about ethnicity, language family migration, or even superficial outward racial characteristics... but I'd prefer to talk about the first two, as they are more concrete in their definition.

Many early migrations of humans that remained in the tropics retained certain "black" features in their hair and skin, though they are as distinct from Africans as from anyone else genetically. The original inhabitants of South East Asia, as well as Australians and New Guineans fit this.

As for his "fake" rant, I don't know what that's about. The entire middle east is not Turkish. The Ottomans ran the show on a lot of those areas at one time, but so did the Romans. That's like saying that The Irish or Scots are English because the English ruled them for a couple of hundred years. Scots and Irish are Celts, where as the English are a mixture of Germanic Anglo Saxons and Francophone Normans. They are not the same, nor does the rule of empire negate one's ethnicity.

There are political racist reasons for the way Africa is treated in American history books. There is also an absence of concrete history to teach for must of the history of much of the continent. Some of this is by (racist) design- erased history. Some of it is just because large parts of the continent fostered cultures that didn't tend to write down their history ore leave a significant archaeological footprint. There were some major empires in West Africa- most of which established themselves after the spread of Islam to the region. The inhabitants were still African by blood and culture, but you have an obvious outside force importing itself- not that there is any culture in history that escapes this- it seems your poster holds a special contempt for anything of less than pure "black" African stock.

These guys, the Nok are about as African as you can get, and they go back to 1000 BCE-

These guys are pretty interesting too