• Uncategorized

Webcomics You Should Be Reading: “Garfield Minus Garfield”!

Marc Alan Fishman

Marc Alan Fishman is a graphic designer, digital artist, writer, and most importantly a native born Chicagoan. When he's not making websites, drawing and writing for his indie company Unshaven Comics, or rooting for the Bears... he's a dedicated husband and father. When you're not enjoying his column here on ComicMix, feel free to catch his comic book reviews weekly at MichaelDavisWorld, and check out his books and cartoons at Unshaven Comics.

You may also like...

28 Responses

  1. angillusion says:

    Joey looks so cute with Iron Man riding on her back!Good taste in webcomics, as usual! :)

  2. Jason M. Bryant says:

    I actually love the comics with lots of empty panels. When Jon yells "It's Mondaaay!" and nobody reacts, that drives home the idea that Jon is actually talking to nobody.

  3. Kyle Gnepper says:

    I'd heard of this strip but never really checked it out. Its more than a little disturbing (in a good way).Its also such an original thought. You remove the character that I'm not sure John ever truly understood anyway.

  4. Russ Rogers says:

    "Garfield minus Garfield" is funnier than I expected. It's a clever idea. But is it "Art"? There is something too mechanical about it. There is a "Garfield minus Garfield" book! What is the percentage split between Jim Davis and Dan Walsh? Jim Davis is credited as the author. But there is a forward by Dan Walsh who is credited as the creator of garfieldminusgarfield.net.It's like Kidz Bop or the newer Chipmunks albums. Let's take hit songs. Not rearrange them at all. Just replace the vocals with kids vocals or sped up Chipmunk vocals. See if the audience will buy it! I have to admit, I find "Kidz Bop", "The Sugarbeats" and their ilk pretty evil. I'm not sure how I can best express my distaste for this Kiddie Muzak. It's awful.The Chipmunks were (back in the David Seville days) as dangerous, nonconformist and FUNNY as the Simpsons or South Park. There was more MEAT on a Chipmunks album than just the time shifted voices. I actually like the recent movie. It was more of an homage to the original Chipmunks. But most of what has been done with the Chipmunks for the last thirty years has been a perversion of the original characters and concepts. Chipmunk Muzak.I give you "Calvin without Hobbes." http://calvinwithouthobbes.tumblr.com/"Ziggy Without Ziggy," http://ziggywithoutziggy.com/Is it art? Is "Ziggy Without Ziggy" a rip off of Dan Walsh? Or Tom Wilson? Did you know Tom Wilson didn't create Ziggy? BTW, there is a new autobiography of Tom Wilson II (Tom Wilson's son, who continues drawing the strip): Zig-zagging: Loving Madly, Losing Badly How Ziggy Saved My Life. It looks interesting. http://www.amazon.com/Zig-zagging-Loving-Madly-Lo…I could not find "Pogo without Pogo," "Lil' Abner without Lil' Abner," "Krazy Kat without Krazy Kat" or "Marmaduke without Marmaduke." Have at it!

  5. Anonymous says:

    I have to admit I strongly prefer the older iteration, which is Garfield minus Garfield's dialogue. You get approximately the same effect with Jon (that he's crazy and lonely), but you also get Garfield as a normal cat who is clearly aware that Jon is insane, even though he never says a word. It's strangely effective and has a better hit/miss ratio than removing Garfield entirely.

  6. Marc Alan Fishman says:

    Fantastic comment Russ, and I agree I had been questioning whether or not to submit G-G as a "Webcomic You Should Be Reading"… Is it art? In the same way some other post-modern work can be considered it, to a point. More than it's "artistic merit" though, Garfield Minus Garfield just made me laugh. The other examples you provided above have about the same impact, I guess, but really, here Tom had a clear plan; To show Jon as a manic depressive, crazy guy. On that level, he totally succeeds. Is he an author though? No, merely, a producer. It's akin to "Quinton Tarrantino" presenting a Grind House movie, or a Kung Fu flick. Concerning your comments on Kids Bop.. well, I'm as against that BS as anyone. Kids are intelligent enough to discern music in it's original format. The original Alvin and Chipmunks DID have "meat" to their albums, but now, like the kidz bop crap, it's just auto tuned, auto pitched, auto-merchandised for the parents who just don't care about their kids. I'm looking forward to when I have kids, and can introduce them to some of my favorite bands, Barenaked Ladies, Guster, They Might Be Giants… all of whom have AMAZING kid friendly material. Now, to go work on my opus, Jon Sable Minus Jon Sable.

    • Russ Rogers says:

      "Jon Sable Minus Jon Sable" is a hilarious idea! Panel after panel of people's heads exploding for no particular reason!They Might Be Giants have several good kids albums. Barenaked Ladies put out a nice kids album last year, "Snack Time". I think Peter Himmelman's kids music is real. So is "Trout Fishing in America," great band. These are real musicians making albums for kids and adults that don't undersell the kids. Even Lisa Loeb has several kids albums! Some musicians are "slumming it" when they do a kids album, there is a lack of sincerity and originality to the music. But there are more and more really good albums for kids. Too bad it gets overshadowed by Kidz Bop. Oh well.

  7. Eric Garneau says:

    Garfield Minus Garfield is pretty great. Good post! FYI, I feel like it does count as art… at the very least it's creative. There's not a lot of people, I don't think, who would have thought to remove the titular cat from Jim Davis' strip… it took Dan Walsh to actually do it. And the fact that the result ends up casting a new light on the original (at least, in my opinion)… to me, that makes it art.

    • Russ Rogers says:

      I agree that it's a unique concept. And it's funny. I agree that it shows the strip in an entirely new light. But the process of making new "Garfield minus Garfield" strips is almost entirely mechanical. Is it "creative" or is it just editing? Anyone can do it! Does "Art" NEED to be founded upon "originality"?It reminds me of Obamicon.Me. http://obamiconme.pastemagazine.com/ This is a web site that takes inspiration from the Shepherd Fairey "Obama/Hope" poster and makes the process mechanical! The results can be funny, insightful and interesting. But is it "Art"? Does that make a difference? Are the programmers who created the Obamicon process artists?It's not just a rhetorical question. Shepherd Fairey is in a legal battle over his Obama poster. The AP says that because Fairey used one of their photographs as a reference, they should see a taste of the profits from Fairey's use of the image! Should Fairey get a taste of the profits from the Obamicon.Me site?

  8. Marc Alan Fishman says:

    Is it "art"? yes. Is it "fine art"? No. The process of simply removing garfield is purley mechanical, and I stated (above) that it doesn't always work well. Things like this, the obama maker, etc.. are funny, in that they are a "spend 10 minutes getting a good laugh out of them, and move on" funny.Does "Art" need to be founded upon originality? No. To make it fine art though, I think purely mechanical processes don't attain that level. But, fine art or not, funny is funny.

    • Russ Rogers says:

      I remember debating with a college room mate. I made the claim that the "Coca Cola" logo was great art. I said that the logo was easily recognized no matter what language it was printed in, that many people loved the logo, that it sold as posters and signs and other things that people displayed. His claim was that it was "Commercial Design," done without the intention of being "Art." His claim, you can't have "Art" without the intention of the "Artist." (Are natural rock formations "Art" even if they are beautiful?) He also said that people's love for the logo was dependent on their love for the product, that a work of "Art" had to stand on it's own merits.I just like this kind of debate. (I'm enjoying this commentary thread!) There is a great song off of "Song for Drella" (an Andy Warhol tribute song cycle by Lou Reed and John Cale) called "The Style It Takes." I've got a brillo box and I say it's artIt's the same one you can buy at any supermarket'cause I've got the style it takesAnd you've got the people it takesWarhol's life was an experiment in Style versus Substance.And I highly recommend "Songs for Drella" for anyone interested in Andy Warhol, the Velvet Underground or exploring the subject "What is Art?" Great Album.

  9. Marc Alan Fishman says:

    I'm happy to continue the debate, for sure Russ. A logo, a rock formation, a brillo box… it can all be aesthetically pleasing. Is it art? In my humbled opinion, no. It's great design work. It's recognizable, bright, loud, and as you say, huge worldwide (talking about the coke logo specifically.). You can have art without the intention of the artist, I think, to a degree. Some artists don't intend or set out to create a dialogue with their work necessarily… Some just create because they have to. Art is truly in the eyes of the beholders. Where I can say, without a doubt, songs by They Might Be Giants are ART to me… because of their juxtapositioning of lyrical sentiment with truly opposing melody and song structures. To me, that is a form of art. In the same breath, I find books like Kings in Disguise, A contract with G-d, Maus, Arkham Asylum, and the Watchmen to be ART. But I don't feel like Jew Gangster, Or Final Crisis is "art" in the same way. There is a fine line out there between what each of us consider to be "art"… and it's those debates that drives me to be a creator.

    • angillusion says:

      Out of curiosity, where does work like Warhol fall in the realm of this conversation? Or people who paint a canvas completely green with no variation and call it art? Just wondering where it falls on the spectrum.

      • Russ Rogers says:

        There is an element of "Emperor's New Clothes" about Warhol's Art. It's that place where "style" and "hype" meet and merge. I happen to like Warhol and his Pop Sensibilities. I think Warhol is ART (in all caps). I not only like many of his individual works, but I like the conversation and debate his life, his art and his legacy continue to create. I like Warhol more than Lichtenstein. I find Lichtenstein too mechanical, too simple, too derivative. In my mind, Lichtenstein isn't brining enough to the conversation to call his graphic works "original art."There's an element of "Emperor's New Clothes" to any fine art. We're more willing to call it "Art" if somebody else more respected and credentialed has called it art first. Is "Slumdog Millionaire" a better picture because it won the Academy Award for Best Picture?Here's a tutorial called, "Pop Art Inspired by Lichtenstein." I really think it should be called, "Pop Art Inspired by Warhol." But, I like to pick at nits. It's still an interesting tutorial.

        • Marc Alan Fishman says:

          I've seen that tutorial before, used it now and again. Warhol was an artist, in that the works he created, the dialogues he started… were all about "our 15 minutes" . He celebrated fame for fame's sake, and that is certainly a fun concept to deal with. Lichtenstein to me was just as much an artist as warhol… but certainly he did less to challenge himself after he found his niche. But to Roy's credit over Andy… Roy elevated the comic book style out of the kitchy…. and that to me, makes him worth his weight in gold.

  10. Patrick Hughes says:

    I have seen this one before but I always enjoy revisiting it. And to throw my hat in the ring of the "Art" discussion I believe a lot of what is art is what you (as the artist) put into it and what people take from it. So what is art to me might not be art to you. And that s the beauty of art. Art can be created by accident. And even if I don't agree with it, a guy can paint a canvas green and call it art and if someone can find some meaning in it then to that person it is art. And some people who work there asses off with never be artists in the worlds eye. It is a tricky thing (art, that is) that the idea of it often folds in upon itself. So take what you will from that it is just how I see it :) and Marc I enjoyed the article as perusal.

  11. Eric Garneau says:

    Geez, I hate that ComicMix emails me whenever someone comments on these things. I told it not to and it did anyway. Way to listen, website.Couple things:Russ: Your claim regarding "Garfield Minus Garfield," that "anyone can do it," is extremely troubling, for two reasons. One is that it makes it seem as though anyone in the world might have given us this comic strip, but clearly only one person did. Should we somehow see his contribution as less valuable because someone else MIGHT have? Second, and by the same token, technically "anyone" might have made any art. Anyone could have painted the Mona Lisa… all they'd need is paints and a canvas… and anyone might have recorded the entire catalog of the Beatles… all they'd need is a studio and some instruments. But not anyone DID, after all. I think your point is that it is relatively easy to create "Garfield Minus Garfield," as opposed to a complex painting or a musical masterpiece… and this is true from a technical standpoint… but that doesn't mean that it isn't creative. That, to me, lets it be art.Marc: calling "Arkham Asylum" art and "Final Crisis" maybe not art is also very troubling. Are you saying that something is art if you like it? Obviously I don't think you're saying that you are the arbiter of what counts as art, but rather that if something is quality to you it's art, and if it's not it's not. Though I don't have a solid rebuttal yet, I think this is false as well.To everyone: A blanket statement–I think artist's intent has zero to do with what a work is worth. How many artists have made something far greater than themselves? Or something far worse? My favorite example is that George Lucas' Star Wars movies are, to me, a hundred times better than Lucas could ever have imagined or would even recognize, because what I love in them is something that IS there that he would DENY is there. What this means, I'm saying, is that my interpretation of Star Wars is more correct than what I assume George Lucas' is. This may seem like a ridiculous assertion but what I'm getting at is… just because an artist intends to show something in his work doesn't mean it's there. It may in fact end up showing the opposite (another favorite example: that terrible country song "On the Bumper Sticker of My SUV" to me proves precisely why the attitude espoused in the song is idiotic, and clearly this was not the artist's intent).

    • Russ Rogers says:

      Eric, I think you are missing my point. Whether it's "Art" or not isn't a function of the quality of the work. And it's not a question of whether I like it or not. I enjoy "Garfield minus Garfield." It's clever. But it's a defined process. It's a mathematical formula. The formula is X – y = Z. Let X be any Garfield Comic Strip. Let y be the character of Garfield. Z is the resulting strip. It's a fun formula, but it's entirely mathematical and mechanical. Now, I agree with Marc's assessment of "Final Crisis" being something other than "Art." Sure there are elements of artistry involved in it's craftsmanship. But "Final Crisis" was cobbled together by Editorial Committees. It wasn't created as a statement. It was crafted as a piece of commerce. It was designed as a functional piece, like a chair or a soft drink. Yes, there are places where commerce and Art can merge and cross pollinate. I just don't think "Final Crisis" or even "Crisis on Infinite Earths" do that. Again, it's not a judgment on the quality of the story, or even level of enjoyment, it's a theoretical definition of "Art." And under my definition "Animal Man" fits and "The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers" doesn't.You are right about Art containing both more and less than what an artist might intend. But what if there is NO intent at creation. Are cloud formations art? Are rock formations? Personally, I don't think rock formations are art, but Ansel Adams pictures of rock formations ARE Art! If you put a satellite tracking device on a migratory bird and then graph it's flight pattern on a piece of paper, is it art? No. What if it's really interesting or even pretty in an abstract way? Again, no. Because the bird had no intention. Fractal designs are beautiful, but they aren't art. Spiro-graph designs just aren't Art. Why? Because it's a mechanical process that anyone can do! Now, I think Spiro-Graph is cool! If my daughter did a careful, multi-colored Spiro-Graph design, I would give it a place of honor on my fridge. I would say, "What a lovely piece of Artwork!" But it still would not be "Art."Look, one of the things Marc likes about Roy Lichtenstein is that he "Roy elevated the comic book style out of the kitchy." The art was in the comics to begin with. Roy just lifted it and made intellectuals recognize that in some way "Comic Drawings are ART!" And if that made comic professionals take their own artwork more seriously, I guess that very cool. But Lichtenstein didn't elevate comic book art. He didn't actually change much about it at all. He just changed how some people perceived it.

      • Eric Garneau says:

        But see, Russ, what I'm saying is that ANYTHING creative can be broken down to a formula. Will it be more complex than removing one element from something that already exists? Almost certainly yes. But for instance, as someone who digests rock and roll for half of my living… it strikes me how math-like music is. What chord progressions you use, where beats go, where you put fills or solos… it's all a formula, man. It's just one that's too complicated to see on first or second glance, but it's there. If you want to apply some rule that says "a formula that is of X complexity is art, while any formula less than X is not," that's fine, but it seems arbitrary to me.To say that "Final Crisis" is not art because it was constructed by committee… I'm sorry, I don't agree. Any piece of art that exists in pop culture is created by committee. ANY piece. "Animal Man" and "Arkham Asylum" had editorial input just like Final Crisis did. And indeed if you have read the bonus material in the 15th anniversary Arkham Asylum trade, it seems like Morrison and McKean themselves were at odds as to how to best tell the story. Finding a middle ground that compromises the original artistic vision… that sounds like "art by committee" to me. And I bet that Karen Berger had her fair share of mandated changes in both "Arkham" and "Animal Man." Again, probably not as much, but then it seems to me that where you draw the line is quite arbitrary, and indeed math-like. "If a comic has THIS much editorial influence it is not art"… how does one make such a judgment? Further to knock "Final Crisis" because "it was crafted as a piece of commerce"… dude, hardly any comic would get made if it wasn't designed to sell. That's true of "Animal Man" and "Arkham Asylum" on down to "Love & Rockets" and "Scott Pilgrim." Things don't get exposure in our culture without at least a slight commercial edge.To address your point that "Final Crisis" is purely functional… well, I totally disagree, and I think Grant Morrison would as well. He has said many times it was a story he wanted to tell. And I'm curious as to just how perfunctory it could be when most DC comics have not even acknowledged its existence in any meaningful way. But if that's what you feel about it, there's not really an argument to sway you.I like what you said about authorial intention not in WHAT he creates but THAT he creates… I think that is a pretty solid guess as to what art is; in other words, that one must have set out to create SOMETHING. But I think that's a very broad definition and it lets in "Garfield Minus Garfield" and "Final Crisis," which obviously I am fine with. I would also say your daughter's Spirograph pictures ARE art because she DID have intent… she wanted to make a cool design. The bird, on the other hand, was just flying because it was his nature to. Scott McCloud has defined art as, basically, anything humans do outside of what they have to to survive. I wonder how that jives with what we're talking about.Weirdly, I do agree with you on Lichtenstein, although I would still call it art. I think he's kind of an ass, actually, for saying "look, comic art isn't crap" when he actually SIMPLIFIED what was found in the original comic. His work is important to comics, no doubt, but so was the 60s Batman TV show….

        • Russ Rogers says:

          Eric, you make a lot of great points. And yes, almost any art form can be deconstructed to a certain point. But just because I know that Vincent Van Gogh applied paint to canvas in a certain manner, that doesn't make me capable of even copying a Van Gogh, let alone creating something original in Van Gogh's style. Even if I could master the Craft, I doubt that I have the Artistry. Imitation alone can't create Art! There has to be a spark of originality.I don't think that I could even create a "Garfield" comic with the same fluidity, style and humor as Jim Davis. (And frankly, I don't find "Garfield" all that funny. I'm just admitting my limitations.) But if you give me a "Garfield" comic I can crank out a "Garfield minus Garfield" strip without that much trouble. There isn't much craftsmanship involved and there isn't much creativity. It's a rote, mechanical process. It's a process that involves Copying (an imitation) with a rigidly defined subtraction. Yes, I think "Garfield minus Garfield" cartoons are funny. I find them a little funnier than "Garfield" even. Does that mean that I think Dan Walsh is funnier or a better artist than Jim Davis? No. It means I've got a slightly skewed sense of humor. "Garfield minus Garfiled" is darker and more surreal than "Garfield." It's a cool, creative and original idea. And maybe that IDEA is the work of art. But the individual comics aren't! The "soul" of "Garfield minus Garfield" IS art but the "body of work" isn't. I hope that makes sense.I'm glad you brought up Scott McCloud. I've read "Understanding Comics," so I know the definition of art that you are talking about. I break my developing definition into several main overlapping categories. There is ART, CRAFTSMANSHIP, COMMERCE and BEAUTY. As I define it, ART requires the intention of the Artist to create something that can communicate MORE that what is there on the surface. That's the magic of art, that it contains layers of communication. Some layers might not even intended by the artist because there is a role played by the audience in interpretation. CRAFTSMANSHIP is the creation of something utilitarian, like food, clothing, furniture or advertising. I'm not saying there can't be a level of artistry involved in Craftsmanship. And generally there is a certain level of Craftsmanship required for ART. If there was no artistry involved in advertising, every Coke ad would be "DRINK COKE!" "Have a Coke and a Smile," brings a certain level of artistry to the same message. But the intention of an Advertiser is mainly to communicate a simple, utilitarian message. "DRINK COKE!" It's not to create ART, because there is really only one intended layer of meaning to the message. I have nothing against COMMERCE. Art that is created with the intention of being sold isn't any less valid or artistic than art created just for Art's Sake. But, I do believe that an artist can "sell out." An artist can become so consumed with trying to create something that the Marketplace wants that they forget to have an original message themselves. Again the Utility of just Making Money transcends the intention of communicating. Maybe it's putting the interpretation before the message. Maybe "selling out" comes from trying to imitate an idea that is already selling, so you lose the originality in your art.Frankly, I haven't read "Final Crisis" other than a few pages showcased online. I've read other crossover events. I enjoy them. I think the "Crossover" is the one MAJOR difference between Comics and other art forms. The Crossover breaks the fourth wall, by inviting the reader to imagine their own creations or even themselves interacting with the heroes! If Barack Obama can be in a Spider-man comic, why can't I! But most big crossover events are created to solve continuity problems, boost sales of a companies other titles or introduce characters for new titles. TIn my mind, the BIG Corssover Events end up too Utilitarian, Commercial and Convoluted to be really Artistic.But, I can close my eyes and picture the cover to Crisis on Infinite Earths #7, Superman holding the dead body of Supergirl. That image is somehow indelibly burned in my memory. I can't remember much else about that issue. And the whole Crisis is just a mishmash in my head. What happened? Why? But, I remember that image making me feel upset that Supergirl had DIED! (That's Art!) It was because I was so moved by that image that I've felt a bit cheated by Supergirl's subsequent various resurrections. This is a case of one of the parts being greater than the whole!BEAUTY is all those things we find appealing or interesting but might not have any intention for communication behind them, like flowers, migratory patterns of birds, rock formations, the sound of the ocean. For instance, I think Fractal Patterns are beautiful and intriguing. They were invented or discovered by Benoit Mandelbrot. But I don't think of Mandelbrot as an artist. It wasn't his intention to create something beautiful. He just found some interesting properties to a certain formula that results in stunning displays. There may be ART in the formula, but not in the designs that it creates. The Art is in the "Soul" of the Mandelbrot Set, but not in the "Body of Work" created by it!Not everything that is beautiful is Art. Not unless you credit the Divine! And I'm not saying that ART has to be beautiful or pleasing. ART can be intentionally disturbing. In the same way, Ugly Dog Contests are fun, they celebrate our interest in things that are Ugly. But again, Ugly Dogs are ugly without intention. Not really ART. Just "ARF!"Here's an interesting bit that plays about with how art is created! "Electric Sheep" is Meta-Art. The artist, Scott Draves, has created the process, but the resulting "Art" is created by a computer program and an ad hoc committee of users. Check out this video; it's amazing! Maybe "Garfield minus Garfield" is Meta-Art too!I'm not an art historian or a philosopher. I'm just a guy with too much time on his hands, who enjoys thinking about stuff. "Art" is naturally subjective. How I see and define ART isn't meant to be the end of the discussion, just a part of it. This thread has become one of the most fun chats I've had on ComicMix in a while. Thanks for the inspiration, Marc. And thanks to Eric, Patrick, angillusion and everyone else for making this discussion so fun, civil and most of all thought provoking!

  12. Eric Garneau says:

    Okay, sorry, the part in the "to Marc" paragraph should read: "if something is quality to you it's art TO YOU, and if it's not it's not." In other words I take it you mean that art is subjective. I think I disagree with this. But like I said, I'm not 100% on why yet.

  13. Marc Alan Fishman says:

    Ok wow, first off, thank you Eric and Russ for sparking this amazing debate. Allow me to defend several of my points and clarify a few things:1. Art, and what can be considered "Art" in my own opinion, is subjective by definition. Picasso's Nude Decending a Staircase may be considered by you and I as "Art" but to another it may just be an incoherent mess. As a fine art major, I spent the majority of my college career, and my career since, dealing with what 'Art' is. Ultimately, I feel what is art to one person may not be art to another, therefore by definition, art in and of itself is subjective by nature.2. Art to me is not defined alone by technical quality, craft, concept, or my personal like or dislike of the piece. I abhore certain modern art (especially performance art) but I still consider it to be art, whether or not I like it. Specific to the "Arkham Asylum" vs. "Final Crisis" being art… I redact my former statement. They are both "art". My real feeling is in the final presentation and success of said art, and ultimately, that's a whole debate NOT related to what this post is originally about.3. Garfield Minus Garfield is an equation. It has less artistic merit than a comic that is created by hand, but it is itself still a post-modern presentation of art. It's half "found object" half "re-representation". More than that though, it's FUNNY, and that's why we're here.Thanks to everyone for debating, let the fire still burn, and keep on keeping on!

    • Russ Rogers says:

      Marc, Marcel Duchamp did "Nude Decending a Staircase, No. 2." It's ART and it ROCKS! http://www.univie.ac.at/cga/art/modern.htmlYou are right, arguing that "Final Crisis isn't ART" is ridiculous. It's ART if you see it that way. But, there is something contrived and convoluted about the BIG Crossover Events that, for me, makes them generally less "Artistic" than many other comics. I don't know if that's a judgment on the merit of BIG Crossover Events or just a statement about how much I have (or haven't) enjoyed them. I just don't find much "meaning" there. They don't mean that much to me. I can see their importance to the history and continuity of comics and the characters. They just aren't that important to me. More and more, the BIG Event smacks of just being a "sales gimmick" and in that way the companies are "selling out." It seems like the focus is too much on "what will sell," not on "What's going to make a great story!"

      • Marc Alan Fishman says:

        Alas Russ, you got me there… I was thinking of Duchamp, and typed Picasso. That aside, it's so true in today's marketplace the ideology of "what will sell" vs. "what makes a great story"… It effects SO much of what is created. But now and again (especially here on Comicmix with tales like LJ:Crash, etc.) we are treated to the best combination of both.

  14. Crowley says:

    I love this idea and it really was brilliant… good on Jim Davis for realizing it's worth too.

  15. Russ Rogers says:

    This isn't exactly a web comic, but it's a bit of Meta-Art on the level of "Garfield minus Garfield."Marmaduke Explained: http://marmadukeexplained.blogspot.com/

  16. lauren brenner says:

    I love Garfield Minus Garfield, but someone really took it to a new level. They took the whole Garfield Thanksgiving Special… and digitally removed Garfield. It's insane. It's called An Arbuckle Thanksgiving. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_KVsQXeE6ALooks like they did the same thing with the christmas special.

  17. Russ Rogers says:

    Check this out! Garfield Minus Garfield PLUS Garfield! http://twitpic.com/rwio7