Attached Link: http://www.undefined.net/1/0/

The cigar is only a cigar if it is not a pipe! (Sorry, I could't resist) To answer one of the questions above, I think that most artists will acknowledge the use of archetypes (or whatever) to get their message across. But there has to be respect for the icon or the symbolism in order to be worthwhile. Just using an archetype because it will sell the piece isn't good art. In that case, the artist is no more than a businessman who *uses* hard-working people to get ahead, and ill-treats them to boot. Figure that we deal in the play of Light and Shadow across form. Those two concepts are deeply burdened by millennia of meanings and associations. Chaos and Order. Form and Void. Weighty things! But, look, the fact that we contrast opposing thoughts bespeaks our dependence upon Zoroastraean duality. Perhaps the texturing of shadow and the nuancing of light show progress and sophistication from very primitive origins. Yet, each artist has to explore the concepts anew, even as each baby has to sort out "self" and "not-self". Black and white comics don't leave much room for graduated tone, so perhaps the absolutes of good and bad were more amplified. With photographs, it is more difficult to be so absolutely rigid. If the art in the comics becomes more realistic in appearance, it is possible that the stories being told will also have more flexibility in interpretation and more depths to explore. Possible. I do not follow comics... my interest in them is because they are another form of sequential art. The Bayeaux Tapestry, the stations of the cross, the tombs of the pharoahs are all sequential art, as are comics and animation. However, the comic which interests me most right now is called One Over Zero. I'd never encountered the idea of the "fourth wall" before. Fascinating. Carolly