Ham on Rye - web comic

[jordan]

things that are shit, according to short bus:
crumb's illustrations in 'bring me your love' and 'there's no business'
crumb's 'the book of genesis'
johnny cash's cover of 'hurt' by nine inch nails
moebius's art in 'the incal'
jacques tardi's art in 'west coast blues'
anything loujon press ever did (it's just bukowski's words wrapped in a fancy package)
etc.

you can minimize any adaptation with the same line ("all you did is....") - and if your argument is that adaptation is a worthless art form, then you aren't worth arguing with.

 

[hoochmonkey9]

I'm with jordan here. Big Tiger is an illustrator, there is no implied 'collaborator.'

my favourite edition of Moby Dick is the one with the Rockwell Kent illustrations. Melville didn't collaborate on that edition, probably because he was dead for a long time. but whoever owned the rights (is that the proper term?) to Moby Dick signed of on it and I'm glad they did.

 

[Bukfan]

Funny, I don't recall anybody being upset when Schultheiss illustrated a bunch of Bukowski's short stories (or when Crumb illustrated some of Kafka's stories). I don't see anything wrong with an artist illustrating somebody else's stories. If that's wrong, then it's also wrong to make somebody else's story into a movie.

 

[mjp]

If that's wrong, then it's also wrong to make somebody else's story into a movie.

Well...it is wrong to make someone's story into a movie, if they (or their heirs) didn't sell you the rights to that story or agree to let you adapt it.

You can't compare Big Tiger's work to the Moby Dick illustrations or Crumb's illustrations of Bukowski's work because they aren't the same thing. All Big Tiger is doing is what the kids who "write" music around Bukowski's words are doing. Hitching a ride on someone else's creativity.

My argument with this type of thing has never been that it isn't valid or doesn't have any merit (especially in music, where cover versions have a long and respected history that started before modern recording methods existed), but rather that it's lazy, and more than a little parasitic.

People are looking at and commenting on (and coming to virtual blows over) Big Tiger's drawings because of Bukowski's words. Take those words away and the interest in the cats is nil.

 

[jordan]

it's not lazy if you add to it or develop it in some way (especially b/c big tiger said up front he was doing it as more of an exercise and not because he wanted to publish it). i haven't read the whole thing, so i guess i'm not defending it as much as i'm taking issue with the fact that decrying that "it's shit" just by virtue of the fact that it uses bukowsi's words makes no sense.

 

[growing beard]

Where to start... If he gets permissions from the copyright holder, do you approve? If he publishes this without permissions, he will get sued. Do you oppose all posthumous work? Some Bukowski treatments are pretty offensive, but not only do I like this one, but think that Hank would like it too. The only way to know is to ask the estate. If they approve, then that is as good, really, as Hank approving.

And not sure how making money especially if royalties are paid to the estate is offensive. This seems to be the same tired, old argument that Bukowski just wanted to write and drink and hated the idea that people made money off his writing ("he was just about the words, maaaaan...") It is complete bullshit. He understood that it is a business and that it afforded him and now his widow a comfortable life.

he understood that it's a business but i think he also managed to transcend that business aspect of it because of how much substance he had and how much knowledge and skill and chops and experience and sensibility. But I don't think that what I'm saying is the tired argument that you reference here at all. I'm saying that there are some principles at play here. i know that they're not the end-all be-all, but then neither is whether it makes a buck and/or looks cool.

and i think that the 'Hank would've liked it' argument is garbage. first of all he was a fickle fucker (maybe i'm projecting, just my opinion there), and secondly he's dead. i always hate when people say 'oh so and so would LOVE this' ...

I've been taking other parts of your post to heart though and Jordans too and even though i'll bicker about the subtleties, I am changing my mind about the end result. It is a bit like like taking his poems and making the into a song, as MJP said, but if the estate is cool with it, nuff said. I was probably projecting some marxist anti-commodification/exploitation crap and its high time to get over it. bottom line, if somebody published these renditions with the approval of his heirs, I'd buy it up and tell my friends to buy it too.

back to the objection from Hooch, though, anybody who wraps their work around somebody elses work is either collaborating or stealing/tainting. i guess i'm using collaborating in a broader, metaphysical sense here, the sense in which old ben kenobe and young skywalker collaborated on taking down the death star. saying it's 'just an illustration' makes it seem like the 'illustrator' isn't altering the presentation of the work, which he is. after reading the comic, nobody will read the original the same, there will be this little picture of a cat in the back of their mind. so it's a big deal and thats what got me going hard to the hole about it in the first place.

but then just cuz its a big deal doesn't mean it shouldn't go down. The world is changing, Hank seems to me to have seen that, and even though we can't say whether he would have liked it or not, i think he would have at least understood why his heirs should see fit to approve this project.

sorry so long:nw: now back to my regularly scheduled program of ... crafting a 3-d version of the mona lisa from lincoln logs and play dough :p

 

[roni]

[...............]

I'd not even consider reading such a long text for half a second, but I'm sure you're right.

 

[d gray]

...growing bored of growing beard? :DD

 

[growing beard]

ha! ... and yep

 

[Black Swan]

As Bukowski said in Ham on Rye:
"I'll take all of you one at a time! As soon as I'm done with this guy, you're next!" :DD

 

[hoochmonkey9]

I don't see what Big Tiger is doing as being lazy. we don't call a film maker lazy for adapting a novel. we might not like the results, but we don't accuse them of sycophancy.

oops, I stand corrected; just found the headline for Pauline Kael's review of Doctor Zhivago:

Hey, David Lean? Think Up Your Own Shit, Asshole.

 

[mjp]

Using a big Hollywood movie as an example doesn't go very far in convincing me of your point, since Big Hollywood is a titling shithouse of unoriginality. There is no other "creative industry" that fears the original idea more than Hollywood.

They wake up in a cold sweat from nightmares where they were forced to do something new or original. "It was terrible, I tell you! We had to write scripts from scratch, like animals! Oh my god, I can't stop trembling! Get New York on the phone!"

We're already in a world where everything is a remake of something else, so everyone should be comforted by that.

 

[hoochmonkey9]

the studio is lazy, yes. the guy picked to direct The Hunt For Red October is just collecting a paycheck. he's trying to make a good action flick, but he's not going to fight the system for his artistic vision. the guy adapting Factotum is already swimming upstream and is doing it because he loves the book, or Bukowski, etc.

Big Hollywood in general is lazy and greedy, but not every film maker in the system is.

 

[roni]

this was a nice thread once.
That was the time, when this guy showed us the comic he's working on.
Ah! Good old times!

 

[mjp]

This thread took a predictable detour, but it's a valid discussion (as always). I don't think anyone has been murdered yet.

And I'm sure Mr. Tiger will be back with more kitties for anyone who finds them irresistible.

 

[hoochmonkey9]

Lolcats!

 

[Bukfan]

Well...it is wrong to make someone's story into a movie, if they (or their heirs) didn't sell you the rights to that story or agree to let you adapt it.

That's right. Still, the quality of an adaptation and having the rights are two different things. You could easily imagine somebody getting permission to set Buk's words to music with a bad result and somebody else doing a better job of it without having permission. In Big Tiger's case, he's just doing it as an exercise not meant for publication.

You can't compare Big Tiger's work to the Moby Dick illustrations or Crumb's illustrations of Bukowski's work because they aren't the same thing. All Big Tiger is doing is what the kids who "write" music around Bukowski's words are doing. Hitching a ride on someone else's creativity.

I don't see the difference between Crumb's illustrations of Buk's work and Big Tiger's, apart from the permission thing.

My argument with this type of thing has never been that it isn't valid or doesn't have any merit (especially in music, where cover versions have a long and respected history that started before modern recording methods existed), but rather that it's lazy, and more than a little parasitic.

True, you could argue those type of things are lazy and parasitic if they don't add anything new to the original work. Some music cover versions were better than the originals and some were worse.

People are looking at and commenting on (and coming to virtual blows over) Big Tiger's drawings because of Bukowski's words. Take those words away and the interest in the cats is nil.

True, the words are always more important than the artwork in comics. It's all about the story. Without a good story you just end up with a bunch of drawings whether they're great or not.

 

[mjp]

In Big Tiger's case, he's just doing it as an exercise not meant for publication.

Not for nothing, but a few of you have made that excuse point, and you're incorrect.

As far as the law and a judge and Jesus Christ are concerned, everything typed and posted here and in any other publicly accessible place on the Internet is indeed published.

Whether a derivative work is made for profit or not (or as an "exercise" or not) has no bearing on potential infringement. Publishing your "adaptation" without permission is still infringement. The creator (or the creator's estate) are assumed to have control over any "interpretations" of the work.

I'm really a little baffled that anyone would argue against that. There isn't an argument against it. You can't just rape someones god damn art and push the mutant child out into the world all droopy-eyed and giggling and drooling.

Debate the minutia all you'd like. Bottom line is it just isn't right. It's not right to do that to someone else's art.

 

[Short Bus]

Jordon the thoughts were mine. But to call me shit because you don't like my opinion and then accuse me of not having an original opinion is unbecoming and kinda goofbally
As for your list of things I think are shit-well from looking at my post I said the his illustrations of Ham On Rye were shit-(since he asked for feedback)-the list you provided is typical straw man theatrics-as was the ad hominem-you're shit
What he is doing is the same as Vanilla Ice-using one persons excellent effort to elevate his own. And I believe my advice is better than any praise-go find something original to do. Ask your self this if he placed one of his illustrations around one of your books and claimed it as his own without your knowledge would you be pleased? or would you think that was a shity thing to do? Careful with your answer-he's reading this thread too.

 

[Big Tiger]

Jesus, this has all turned kind of nasty. I get the feeling a lot of what's getting debated here hasn't got much to do with my work but more about people ripping off Bukowskis work in general. I've not seen any of the film or music stuff people have done so I can't comment.

I started this about 6 months ago, its something I do in my spare time, evenings and weekends. As some of you have pointed there's a lot of my interpretation of things, some elements get removed and occasionally I have to add little things in. I can do a couple of pages in a day, not including the thumbnails and when I redo some of the frames. Once I'd done the first few chapters I started this thread, when I'd finished five I posted a link for my 120 FaceBook friends, once. Other than that the only other place I've put links is on an art forum I use to get sequential art specific feedback.

My site gets around 150 visitors a month, I don't ask for donations, I'm not sharking for publishers. I'm not getting rich from this, or makng any money at all, all I was getting was a couple of compliments for my fragile ego.

Left to my own devices I end up just drawing or painting similar subject matter, characters, people I see about and some stuff from photos. What's great for me about using somebody else's material is the challenge, I need to draw things I'd maybe normally avoid. I'm pretty rubbish at drawing backgrounds and environments which this pushes me to practise. Drawing cars is something I've always struggled with, here its not just a car, it needs to be a 1920's model-T, I need to do research and some draft drawings. Why do I do it? I enjoy it.


Reading the book, this is how I see it, drawing it feels right to me. I'm not claiming to be a genius, I'm not even claiming to be that good at drawing. I'm a 34 year old with a shit job and a dream about drawing for a living that gets more unlikely every year.

I did write once, last year I did a sit-com for a competition, I enjoyed the writing process but it doesn't feel like its what I'm made for and I don't think it was that good. It was based in a taxidermists in Inverness, I'll upload it if anybodies interested, if you read it you'll agree I should stick to art.

The Vanilla Ice thing is fine for me, to be compared to the second greatest white rapper in the world, and, if you've seen his blockbuster movie “Cool as Ice (1991) ” the greatest rapper actor our generation has ever seen. The 10 minutes I managed to watch of moved me to tears. Turns out its a rap-oriented remake of "The Wild One," talking of dancing on graves.

Why stop with Vanilla Ice, “Rapper's Delight” by The Sugarhill Gang uses “Good Times” by Chic, Public Enemy and most early hip hop used huge amounts of samples. In fact check out the modern day example by Pharoahe Monch.

I understand how some people feel about certain artists, we feel they belong to us. I was once a postman so I feel like I've got a kinship with Bukowski that nobody else understands, I recognise other people can like him more and probably understand him.

Putting aside the massive copyright infringements I'm committing by allowing a couple of hundred people to see this for no profit, I just would like the people that enjoy reading it to do so, I'll keep drawing more and maybe I'll get better.

As Vanilla Ice says in Cool as Ice, “You're not wasting my time, I'm just cooling.”

 

[mjp]

I only brought up copyright because people kept saying you didn't intend to publish these, when the fact is, you already have.

My issue with this kind of thing has always been artistic and aesthetic, not legal. And someone either understands that or they don't.

 

[Bukfan]

Not for nothing, but a few of you have made that excuse point, and you're incorrect.

As far as the law and a judge and Jesus Christ are concerned, everything typed and posted here and in any other publicly accessible place on the Internet is indeed published.

I wasn't trying to excuse Big Tiger. I only pointed out what he himself said about the exercise not being meant for publication. Point taken, regarding the concept of publishing. I never thought of posting amateur artwork on the internet for a small group of people and for free as publishing, but that's my mistake.

 

[growing beard]

I heart the forum. This is the only place where I do not feel that I'm the only non-depressing person in the room. Yall are great.

Big Tiger, I for one respect your story and your sensibility, and that's saying a lot because I consider pretty much every culture product since the industrial revolution to be garbage. So, find someone who is alive and looking for an illustrator. Putting aside massive copyright infringements is easier said than done ... It sounds pretty cut and dry that you can only make this work publicly accessible IF you get the OK of the estate. Even then, MJP will probably scorn you, so whether you want that hanging over your head is another question. And by all means, don't be that guy who only cares about his thread - there are some awesome threads around here and a lot of conversations that could be worth reinvigorating.

I'm not claiming to be a genius

Thanks for the modesty.

cheers,
Mike aka "The Genius"

p.s. you can still work on ham, just don't make it publicly accessible. can anyone say 'l'art clandestin' in latin?

 

[jlkirby77]

These are really good man! Keep up the work! I've always wanted to see a visual translation of Ham on Rye. So many great images in that book and I love the style you used to bring them to life. Seriously though, if this was published. I would buy it in a heartbeat.

 

[roni]

I heart the forum.

My worst fears came true.

I do not feel that I'm the only non-depressing person

Where do you get your concepts from?

Even then, MJP will probably scorn you

The "J" is silent.

don't be that guy who ....

Another valuable advice from our longtime regular beard.