24.02.2013 Views

Painting Fine-Art Cartoons in Oils - Enchanted Images

Painting Fine-Art Cartoons in Oils - Enchanted Images

Painting Fine-Art Cartoons in Oils - Enchanted Images

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

ELEMENT 2:<br />

Distraught<br />

ducks<br />

Diagram of Barks’s “Dam Disaster At Money Lake.” In simple-narrative compositions like this one, it isn’t apparent how the narrative<br />

elements <strong>in</strong>teract with each other, or understand<strong>in</strong>g their <strong>in</strong>teraction requires <strong>in</strong>formation not conta<strong>in</strong>ed <strong>in</strong> the pa<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

If a pa<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g’s subject<br />

matter required too much<br />

explanation to be understood<br />

at a glance, Barks resisted<br />

do<strong>in</strong>g it. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Barks,<br />

fans had been ask<strong>in</strong>g for a<br />

pa<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g of the “burst<strong>in</strong>g<br />

of the money dam” s<strong>in</strong>ce<br />

the 1970s. Barks always<br />

turned them down because<br />

the subject “would take<br />

too much explanation. It’s<br />

someth<strong>in</strong>g that needs a<br />

long build-up so that you<br />

understand what it is. It’s<br />

the climax of a series of<br />

attempts by the Beagle Boys<br />

to take over that money.”<br />

When Barks f<strong>in</strong>ally agreed<br />

to pa<strong>in</strong>t “Dam Disaster<br />

At Money Lake” (1986) he<br />

<strong>in</strong>sisted that the lithograph<br />

121<br />

ELEMENT 1:<br />

Burst<strong>in</strong>g dam<br />

reproduction of it be<br />

accompanied by a repr<strong>in</strong>t<br />

of Uncle Scrooge FC No.<br />

386, the story on which the<br />

pa<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g was based – for<br />

good reason. Though there<br />

are many visual elements<br />

<strong>in</strong> the pa<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g, they don’t<br />

<strong>in</strong>teract with each other to<br />

imply action: We see Scrooge<br />

and the nephews; we’re <strong>in</strong><br />

an outdoor sett<strong>in</strong>g; there’s<br />

a river of money; co<strong>in</strong>s are<br />

fly<strong>in</strong>g everywhere; Donald<br />

has a toolbox; and Scrooge,<br />

with his battered hat, is<br />

look<strong>in</strong>g very dismayed.<br />

But what do any of these<br />

elements have to do with<br />

each other? There is no<br />

way of know<strong>in</strong>g strictly by<br />

look<strong>in</strong>g at the pa<strong>in</strong>t<strong>in</strong>g.<br />

ELEMENT 3:<br />

Deluge of<br />

co<strong>in</strong>s<br />

I sifted through a couple<br />

of libraries look<strong>in</strong>g for a<br />

def<strong>in</strong>ition or description<br />

of how narrative gags<br />

are constructed. Because<br />

I couldn’t f<strong>in</strong>d one,<br />

I’ve written my own:<br />

A compound-narrative<br />

composition conta<strong>in</strong>s three<br />

or more visual elements that<br />

<strong>in</strong>teract with each other to<br />

imply action. You can almost<br />

write it out as a formula:<br />

Element (1) <strong>in</strong>teracts<br />

with Element (2), which<br />

<strong>in</strong>teracts with Element (3),<br />

which implies action with<br />

(usually) Element (1). It’s<br />

the implied action that<br />

conveys the story. Removal<br />

of any one element will<br />

result <strong>in</strong> the collapse of the

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!