<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Kibbles &#8216;n&#8217; Bits 5/7/08</title>
	<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/05/07/kibbles-n-bits-5708/</link>
	<description>The News Blog of Comics Culture</description>
	<pubDate>Sun,  8 Nov 2009 16:36:38 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Jeff Trexler</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/05/07/kibbles-n-bits-5708/#comment-1502384</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 23:29:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/05/07/kibbles-n-bits-5708/#comment-1502384</guid>
					<description>@Marcus: My guess is, a lot of people.  This cartoon would seem to be qualitatively different, say, from Roy Lichtenstein, whose referents generally were not well known.  In the case of the New Yorker, we're dealing with a number of folks who are quite familiar with comics history--for example, the magazine's art director, Francoise Mouly, is the spouse of Art Spiegelman, and the cartoon's artist, Harry Bliss, has  worked with Spiegelman in the Little Lit series.  

Should the New Yorker have obtained a license &amp;#38; acknowledged Kirby?  From a legal perspective, one could make the argument, but this particular story is only half written.  After all, acknowledgment may be forthcoming, say, in punchlines selected as contest finalists.    

Beyond any legal issues and accusations of plagiarism, there's something even more culturally significant going on here.  Forty years ago the cognoscenti looked at the comic lifts of Lichtenstein &amp;#38; Warhol without any idea who created the source material.  Now, it seems likely that key folks at the New Yorker who saw this panel appreciated the Kirby reference, just as we recognize parodies of the Mona Lisa or Picasso. 

I know I'm a lawyer and such, but when I opened to the back page and saw this it was incredibly moving.  This reference is not mere nostalgic pop; it's one more sign that comics creators, once dismissed as the purveyors of junk, have joined the ranks of the masters.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@Marcus: My guess is, a lot of people.  This cartoon would seem to be qualitatively different, say, from Roy Lichtenstein, whose referents generally were not well known.  In the case of the New Yorker, we&#8217;re dealing with a number of folks who are quite familiar with comics history&#8211;for example, the magazine&#8217;s art director, Francoise Mouly, is the spouse of Art Spiegelman, and the cartoon&#8217;s artist, Harry Bliss, has  worked with Spiegelman in the Little Lit series.  </p>
<p>Should the New Yorker have obtained a license &amp; acknowledged Kirby?  From a legal perspective, one could make the argument, but this particular story is only half written.  After all, acknowledgment may be forthcoming, say, in punchlines selected as contest finalists.    </p>
<p>Beyond any legal issues and accusations of plagiarism, there&#8217;s something even more culturally significant going on here.  Forty years ago the cognoscenti looked at the comic lifts of Lichtenstein &amp; Warhol without any idea who created the source material.  Now, it seems likely that key folks at the New Yorker who saw this panel appreciated the Kirby reference, just as we recognize parodies of the Mona Lisa or Picasso. </p>
<p>I know I&#8217;m a lawyer and such, but when I opened to the back page and saw this it was incredibly moving.  This reference is not mere nostalgic pop; it&#8217;s one more sign that comics creators, once dismissed as the purveyors of junk, have joined the ranks of the masters.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: MarcusLusk</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/05/07/kibbles-n-bits-5708/#comment-1501311</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 20:51:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/05/07/kibbles-n-bits-5708/#comment-1501311</guid>
					<description>My caption for the New Yorker rip-off:
&quot;Plaguarism? Please, Ted, it's only a comicbook cover. Jack Kirby's been dead for years! Who's going to notice?&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My caption for the New Yorker rip-off:<br />
&#8220;Plaguarism? Please, Ted, it&#8217;s only a comicbook cover. Jack Kirby&#8217;s been dead for years! Who&#8217;s going to notice?&#8221;
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Joe Quesada responde pregúntas fáciles &#171; ¡Operación Mandril!</title>
		<link>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/05/07/kibbles-n-bits-5708/#comment-1500003</link>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 17:49:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pwbeat.publishersweekly.com/blog/2008/05/07/kibbles-n-bits-5708/#comment-1500003</guid>
					<description>[...] Fuente: The Beat [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Fuente: The Beat [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
