As always, stay tuned here on !comicstrips@lemmy.world for a slow trickle out of Jucika comics, but if you want to find more, here’s a good post with a large collection that /u/JohnnyEnzyme@piefed.social posted last year: https://piefed.social/post/1258520
**Also, check out some Jucika fan art! https://piefed.social/c/eurographicnovels/p/2128207/the-best-of-jucika-fan-art-12-pieces-with-two-videos
**You can find more Jucika content in c/graphicnovels by using this search
Fair enough, but as someone who’s been immersed in the comics and arts process for a long time, I can’t say that a philosophical proposition / debate on the process of intent interests me overmuch. People who want to can debate that all they want, and note that “intent” was your statement, not mine.
In my expanded comment (the linked post) I was moreso getting in to specific ideas, admittedly without knowing much about the author’s life & process, leaving the comment --YES-- speculative, and even a bit philosophical, not unlike a puzzle to unravel. And I happen to enjoy puzzles. With other comics creators, I know vastly more about what their process, ideas and intentions were.
With my own art pieces, many of them reach a sort of unfinished state in which I get a bit stumped about what I’m really trying to go for. I usually need either a bit of inspiration, a new idea, or a more cognitive process in which I attempt to figure that out. In fact I view the whole creation process as being informed by multiple thoughts, techniques, and experiments. But I’m something of a weird artist who gets bored quickly and likes to move on after a couple studies. Others will stay in one genre / set of styles and just hone away on them. But I digress…
I’m a horribly uncreative person myself, but I do find it partially delusional how so many creative people take ownership of their entire process. I feel like a lot of that stuff happens subconsciously and it’s more like having a waking dream than designing a bridge.
That’s why I itch when people discuss intent (whether or not they use the word): because even the authors stated intent might be truly authoritative. That is to say, if someone lives in a sexist society, and derives a sexist plotline, then they can’t wiggle out of it by saying, “I didn’t intend to be sexist” or “But I’m absolutely not sexist!” In today’s Twitter-connected culture, people bypass reading the text and just read the authors tweet; that’s how the Matrix was established as an undisputed trans allegory you have to be mentally deficient not to recognize.
But if I were a creative person, I think I’d be more interested in how the art worked independently of the author, though certainly it would be fun to see how an authors work develops. I would ALSO be interested in the author’s creative process, but it would be based around how different processes create different work.
Edit: And, I would, I admit, if I had an attraction to an author, use the work to try to understand them better … but that’s a tertiary concern for the public.
Toxic social media aspects FTW! :D
Well, I agree with you that the creation process is indeed somewhat mysterious, and indeed subconsciously inspired. And childrens’ art is some of my favorite art.
On the comics side, I’ve learned almost universally that design, intent, craftsmanship and similar are almost exclusively the working method. One of the articles that I’ve perpetually been meaning to get out the door is about how George Gately went about it, the originator of Heathcliff. Inspiration would play a part for him, yes, but it was also a torturous process, trying to top his previous work and needing to produce ~6 comics a week. My hat’s certainly off to folks like that, but it would probably drive me mad.