When I look at my childhood art, it's the same. It's animals dressed up as people in patterned clothing. It basically looked like concept art for 'BoJack.' It's kind of uncanny.
My cartoon strips in college strived to have the Schulzian mix of surrealism and Charlie Brown angst. A bit of that combo shows up in 'Up.'
The 'Barnaby' books were always intended to be graphic novels.
None of the established museums were treating cartoons seriously. It was considered a lesser art or no art at all, just a way to sell newspapers. Even the syndicates who were dedicated to the cartoons were throwing them out, figuring they had no value after they were printed.
Picasso's always been such a huge influence that I thought when I started the cartoon paintings that I was getting away from Picasso, and even my cartoons of Picasso were done almost to rid myself of his influence.
If you're a painter, it's simply taken for granted that you'll spend a lot of time in museums studying great paintings, but if you're a cartoonist, it used to be very hard to see an original cartoon drawing.
The comics are where all the crazy subconscious stuff comes out.
I remember my comic strips being called 'new wave.' It bugged me.
You can give some kind of spark of life to a comic that a photograph doesn't really have. A photograph, even if it's connecting with you, it seems very dead on the page sometimes.
Carl Barks and Don Rosa are two of my favorite cartoonists ever.
In the high level cartoon world, my number one admired hero would be Chas Addams - really a top, top artist that the 'New Yorker' was lucky to find and employ.
I'm not into Hello Kitty.
As for the cartoonists 'Oily' prints, they are just artists I admire. I am lucky to be friends with most of them so it was easy to contact them. Some have come to me but mainly they are just folks that I admire.
That's the conundrum of cartoon stripping, as opposed to political cartoons. When your anger is the driving force of your drawing hand, failure follows. The anger is OK, but it has to serve the interests of the heart, frankly.
Well, luckily with animation, fantasy is your friend.
I'm a true fan of animation, and it's my livelihood.
I've always felt that the comic strip medium stands equally beside all the other story telling mediums: novels, movies, stage plays, opera, you know, you name it.
I thought it would be fun to make a cartoon about this sad, misanthropic horse.
Anyone should be able to read comics.
My intended audience was everybody. I just want to make cartoons for human beings.
'The New Yorker' didn't invent the magazine cartoon, but it did really establish it.
When I have used cartoon images, I've used them ironically to raise the question, 'Why would anyone want to do this with modern painting?'
I believe that comics are entirely for entertainment.
Most of my exposure to American pop culture was through this weird prism of 'Mad' magazine.
Everybody that loves Nancy loves it in a slightly condescending way. Nancy is comics reduced to their most elemental level.
