This Just In: AGO Tries To Be Edgy, Winds Up Somewhere Between Offensive And Irritating

Ha! No kidding :)

While it's not particularly subversive, the realistic but totally anonymous stripper linework is actually quite a nice juxtaposition with Moore's strangely proportioned reclining women (who look to me like they've been hewn from the rocky northern Ontario countryside).

Also, I've been quiet in the hope that maybe these comics would improve as the artist found her legs, but they haven't. They keep trying to be edgy, but instead wind up somewhere between offensive and irritating. The comic form just isn't a strength of Roxanne's, and I encourage her to either rethink her approach to them entirely or move on and try something different.

I want to be Family Circus.

This cartoon needs a lottttttt of work. It's still not very good.

I like the drawing. I didn't think it was supposed to be funny. When I first saw the strippers in the Henry Moore gallery I laughed because I like irreverrence about Henry Moore. But it doesn't go beyond that (and John Marriott did a much better job with his "where the cat's at" piece). Strippers are funny like farting is funny. After that the image is just dumb and tediously sexist in a way that is so boring it's maddening. Interesting that the guys on this thread seem to have no problem with the sexist art but instead start attacking the drawing by the woman who decided to say something about it. What's up with that?

Pointing out the artist is a woman isn't fair, since *none* of the commentators here brought that up -- which may mean they don't think gender is relevant to this discussion.

You, however, chose to highlight the fact that many of the detractors are male.

*That's* interesting.

Anyway, my personal feeling is that if a story or opinion isn't enhanced by a visual presentation, it should be written rather than drawn as a comic strip.

Lots of good comic strips aren't funny ... but the ones I enjoy tend to have a punchline of sorts, which might be funny, but it can also be insightful or even shocking.

Sarah,
The reason people are attacking the comic isn't because they're guys, it's because it just isn't very good as a comic. The content above would have been perfectly fitting as a comment on an article or as a personal blog entry or maybe even as a "streeter" conversation, but as a comic?
The character on the left says nothing of substance, leaving us with two panels solely consisting of the author's rant. The visuals unfortunately add nothing. Whether I agree with her opinion or not, this simply doesn't work as a comic.

Thanks, by the way, for implying that those who doesn't praise lacking work simply because it was created by a woman are sexist.
For the record, had the Moore gallery linework been of male strippers (and had there been more discernibly male Moore works for contrast), I'd still have found it worthwhile. Sure, it's neither great nor unflinchingly original, but most art isn't.

Noz,
I read Mathew's reaction as being towards the piece in the Moore gallery, not the comic itself. And I understand the goal of the comics, I just don't feel they generally succeed. In this case, it seems to me that Sarah connected almost solely with the text not the visuals.
If you want an example of a comic that expresses little snippets of Toronto life, m@b does it very well. If you want something that's not laugh-out-loud funny, but is very effective as visual communication try "a softer world".

I specifically made a point of not commenting on the specific stripper art in question, as I'm not familiar with it. Thanks, Sarah, for implying that I'm sexist because I think it's a poor comic.

I didn't mean to imply that a comic had to be funny or some sort of escapist thing either. Comics should, however, be interesting and suitable to the medium. As previously noted, the one character says next to nothing, and one of her two "lines" is pretty poor, or should I say "totally messed"? It's totally forced. It fails at being a good snippet-of-life comic as it's not interesting and doesn't seem real.

I figured there was going to be another panel or so to add something to it that would justify its existence in comic form.

"It was just the same old sexist crap" is not a punchinline, so it fails as a punchline-style comic.

"What they also do, and this comic does not, is create a sympathetic character the reader relates to."
That's a very articulate way of saying "I don't like it!". Whether you identify is personal to you.

Also, various people have articulated this "punchline" idea, as if the whole thing has to be said and done by the end of the last panel.

One comment I particularly liked was AM's "I don't really see the point in drawing out actual conversations you've had in day to day life with your friends". Where did you get that? Because the dialog seemed realistic you assumed it was straight documentation as opposed to a part of a bigger story arc? It takes a bit more attention span, but over time the characters and sympathy could be coming out if you waited.

It's best not interpret "enhanced by the visuals" to mean "served to me on a platter fo easy emotional access. If you don't like it, fine, but comments that say it should cease to exist because it doesn't match your conception of a comic are just limited.

I've personally just read too many comic strips that force themselves into the strip-style without taking advantage of its special properties as a comic strip. In my view, the point of a strip style is that the combination of picture and dialogue strengthens and adds a unique quality to the story.

If your dialogue isn't too special, then your art has to be strong. If your art is weak, then your dialogue has to be strong -- one of my favourite exemplaries of this is xkcd, which is just stick figures, but manages to say something smart, funny, touching, insightful, or entertaining every time.

As it stands here, the dialogue so far has been ordinary, and so has the art. This particular strip even discusses something that I'd say blew over a long while ago, and it wasn't much of a storm. It might belong on her personal strip site, but on a site that does so much news, it seems out of date and place.

I really do applaud Roxanne for applying herself to the work that a strip entails, because it can be so gruelling, but nothing is standing out so far that distinguishes her work from the thousands and thousands of comic artists online, many of whom could be publishing on Torontoist if given the chance, I feel.

That's a very articulate way of saying "I don't like it!". Whether you identify is personal to you.

Noz, what in-panel material makes you identify with the character of Roxanne? Is it her relationships with Jason (who?) and Denise (who?), or how she sat on her couch through New Years, or maybe you just agree with everything she complains about? Maybe if the strip was longer we'd get more material to work with. It doesn't have to be a funny strip, it doesn't have to be edgy, but it has to be engaging in a way that transcribing a conversation isn't. Who the hell is Denise? How does Roxanne know her? Jason, for that matter? Who is the guy she's sitting on the couch with in the New Years strip?

I respect that Roxanne (the person) is making this effort, and I can tolerate the inconsistent line weights and cramped hard to read text and poor framing, because those are things that eventually correct themselves (or I'll come around to appreciate in an outsider-art kind of way maybe). I also like that Torontoist is trying a comic strip -- it's something I asked for in the reader survey.