Post #1031 • July 19, 2007, 5:01 PM • 25 Comments
A new comic at The Moon Fell On Me.
July 20, 2007, 9:12 AM
What would you suggest instead?
July 20, 2007, 3:06 PM
I think the use of transparent sepia wash is excellent, especially the couple frame. You should try using transparent colors on your paintings.
July 20, 2007, 3:40 PM
Wow. The sepia is stunning. Sometimes you have to go thin to get substance.
July 20, 2007, 6:23 PM
For more about the sepia, View->Page Source.
July 20, 2007, 9:15 PM
Franklin, been thinking today about how your grading system can be even better. Let me say though that I think rating artworks by some common standard is a good idea. Thanks to Siskel and Ebert we now take it for granted that assessing movies by giving a thumbs up and/or down is a good thing and a helpful way to quickly endorse a show.
When it came to rating your new comic I found it a little uncomfortable having to assign F.E. the artist to either the ones or the twos. I would rather not rate you at all. Instead, I would like to rank the artwork against others of its type. Maybe as an indication that there are better things to look out for from the artist, he or she artist is due some acknowledgment.
But I think I'd still prefer to rate the thing against other like things. So I'll propose something like this: [a classification of what I think the artwork primarily is] dot [one-nine rating of the artwork against other like artworks] dot [one-nine rating of my enjoyment of the artwork]. Class.1-9.1-9
So for Film, I might rate it more accurately as: Comicstrip.7.4
Or for chocolate ice cream: Cold Dessert.3.8
July 20, 2007, 10:21 PM
I looked at the page source. Nothing unusual or informative that I could find about sepia. Just the expected page markup language. Is that what you meant to look at?
July 20, 2007, 10:23 PM
ah ha! I was looking at the source here, not there. I got your note about the walnut ink, etc.
July 20, 2007, 10:42 PM
When I have to rank art specifically it is usually absolute, and on a 100% scale. It is really just a conversational convenience though, not a "for publication" type thing.
July 20, 2007, 11:04 PM
The left-hand number is a bit ad hominem, but it also gets three groups - the dead, the established, and everyone else - apart from each other in what I think is a useful way. It could be an informative exercise. Maybe not.
July 21, 2007, 10:01 AM
So in my first rating I got the prefix wrong: s/b 2.6. There's no doubt that you're an established artist. The difficulty is that I've never been to a show of your work and the only information I have about your status is online, so for me to dump you into one of those two groups is not really a reliable assessment. However, I can speak with authority about my experience of the comic, and rate it against other like comics.
July 21, 2007, 12:35 PM
I've got a friend who's recently become addicted to Walnut Ink...
July 21, 2007, 6:50 PM
I've obviously missed something. What is this rating stuff Ahab keeps going on about? Was there some formula posted somewhere?
July 21, 2007, 9:52 PM
One post back, Jack, Franklin explained his new system.
July 21, 2007, 10:26 PM
So the number to the left of the decimal point is mainly categorical, not necessarily value-based, right? I mean, all dead people are not alike, obviously. Neither are live people, of course, regardless of degree of success or recognition. I don't know...this seems to require further refinement, but I suppose that might defeat the intent...
July 24, 2007, 3:02 AM
...he was the Moon-god who was married to the sun goddess and the stars were his daughters.
July 24, 2007, 4:01 PM
pleased to bringing your attention to the Bad comics challenge, if you haven't already seenz.
July 25, 2007, 5:25 AM
I'm not sure about the prior spamorama comments above [Now removed - F.], but the comic looks splendid. The left-to-right movement works.
July 25, 2007, 9:20 AM
The more I think about the rating system, the less I like it.
Alesh: Seenerz! Teh rocks.
Marc - who's your friend at the Flickr link?
July 25, 2007, 9:22 AM
Oh, and thanks for the numerous props on the comic! Much appreciated.
Today we're leaving Delaware and driving westward. I got my eye on you.
July 25, 2007, 11:20 AM
Franklin - What are your doubts? Are you having second thoughts about rating the artist's reputation, or maybe about putting the artist's reputation first?
I bet people would want to see quality first, and reputation second; and also want to conceptually separate the two from each other.
If you rated three shows as 1.8 (great show of emerging artists), 2.6 (solid show of successful living artists) and 3.4 (mediocre show of historical artists), a culture raised on movie reviews, olympic sports and grade point averages would pick the "3.4" as the one you thought was "best." But if you rated those same three shows as 8C, 6B and 4A, they might compete with each other for attention.
With 3.4, you're saying, "here are some really famous artists, but by the way the work's not so great," but with 4A you're saying, "here's some decent works, but they're by artists whose lesser stuff is still worth seeing."
Actually I'd reserve "A" for those in the history books, "B" for living Hall of Famers, "C" for working pros like y'all, "D" for the emerging/struggling masses, and "E" for the remaining fringes. (Let's put off for the moment where to put dead artists who aren't so famous, and famous or successful artists you don't think are teh hawt).
Of course YMMV.
July 25, 2007, 11:03 PM
sorry hovig, i like #22's rating system much better.
July 26, 2007, 7:34 AM
Franklin is on the road. I don't suppose anyone knows how to get rid of the above garbage?
July 26, 2007, 9:07 AM
Garbage is gone. I'm on the road (Good morning from Cambridge, Ohio!) but I am checking in from wireless-enabled hotels. If it gets much worse I'll turn comments off for a couple of days, but I hate doing that.
Hovig, I guess the more I thought about it the more I should stick to qualitative analysis of qualitative phenomena, and leave the numbers out of it. It was fun to try it but I think in the long run it's not going to age well.
July 26, 2007, 10:18 AM
There it goes again. Comments are off until Friday. Sorry.
July 20, 2007, 1:45 AM
Best one yet: 1.6
Though I think the three-point prefixes for your rating system are a little too restricting for assessment of an artist's respectability.