Ecology = Oikos (Greek "house") "science"
Economy = Oikos (Greek "house") "management"
How can two words so seemingly similar be so miles apart in meaning and
influence? It comes down to the word "management", meaning the head of
the acolyte - numerical, monetary - which nowadays means the soulless
machines of digital munificence.
Oikos has gradually mutated till it means whatever "they" choose. The best counter to this is Marvin Gaye's
a symphony for the ecology of the street. Whereas economy is number, ecology is action - dance, line, movement. As described
HB106 the belief system of primitive societies has a feminine
harmonic. Here, the Shemite Earth Mother Ishtar. The information they
derive from nature is a product of this feminine harmonic.
Primitive
knowledge is therefore much more like ecology (house or home) than it
is economy (number or money). Gaye's album, with its repeated refrains
of "sister", "brother", "hey man" etc features the ecology of the street
in dance, line, movement.
The
ecology of the street - see Detroit prev - which became poor but
maintained its street culture, later attracting investors. Detroit took
the route of ecology over economy - and won. Ecology has the decadence
of living material, and so partakes of the scenic and picturesque (Drama3)
Because
ecology is action (fertility or decay), there is always something there
in terms of line and movement. Street culture can be deadly, as was so
in the dark days of Detroit, and recovery equally dynamic.
Ecology
represents the reality of living material (action), while economy
represents the illusion of number; the expressive algorithm with a story
full of nothing (see Japanese animated head prev.)
Action
is line and movement, which is always very apparent in cartoony styles.
Cartooning is very good at storytelling, since the line has a dramatic
intensity of expression. Like Kayanan, Alfredo Alcala is Filipino with a
great flair for drama.
In terms of cartooning, without the expressive linework there's not much
there. These fantasy styles are quite close to wood blocks, and the
old-fashioned book-plates of Margaret Ely Webb.
I happened to notice the cover to Savage Sword #113, by Jim Hoston, is photo-realistic, which brings in quite a visible problem.
Namely
that cartooning is much less apparent in the blocking out and
definition of the posture. Hoston in the inside feature admitted he used
several different photos to achieve the effect.
At
its most evident, photo-realism has a definition problem that can make
heads appear disembodied. See the hag's head in Howard David Johnson's
The
thing about cartooning is it brings in a classical simplicity which
photos don't have (see also CC Beck's comments on cross-stitch
embroidery). The simplicity gives the linework the freedom to delineate
and then tell the story dramatically.
Without
drawing there can be no telling of myth with drama and intensity.
Photo-realism is neither realism nor fantasy but illusory-reality
(somewhat akin to Japanese animated heads, natch.) What you really lose
is the psychic intensity that comes from the simple and stable design of
face and figure.
Myth
occupies the ecological side of reality that is to do with action,
whether Wagner of Hansel and Gretel. The problem with Howard David
Johnson's mythological pictures is that they negate myth by way of
illusion!
An
illusion is like a mirror; it has no physical reality. The psyche comes
from the simplicity of drawing a stable and dramatic composition;
without that stability and composed sense of dramatic tension, it's all
illusion.
Illusion
is the world we are entering because it doesn't partake of line and
movement that give us the fertile drama of myth. By illusion I mean
number, or photo-realism, or eletromagnetism, or algorithms (ones and
zeros).
It all leads to the same sausage-factory of numerical sex P107
"They" will write stories for these illusory realities that have
nothing to do with a fertile drama of myth, of blood, predator-prey
cycles, of the hunt and Artemis.
It's
all part of the sterilization of culture that is economically viable
but ecologically dead. in our future are lies and viruses.
