johnny hart was an american cartoonist who started a comic called B.C. in 1958. he also created another popular strip called 'wizard of id'.
he was called "the most widely read christian of our time," by a former director of the office of public liaison at the white house.
...
that designation may seem somewhat absurd, but he was still doing B.C. when he died in the 2000s. considering he made two of the most popular american newspaper comics, and ran them for about half a century - in light of how many people read books, it might actually be the case.
his primary topic, prehistoric man, only makes it more interesting that he was a christian. he was raised christian, but after a father son team installed a satellite dish at his home and apparently had some type of gospel conversation with him, he became more serious about it.
that was in the 1980s, well into his cartooning career. this is interesting because suddenly you have a syndicated cartoonist who is like, really serious about being christian, putting out national work. suppose this could unfold in a variety of directions. heres a few examples:
these are all easter strips. it may not occur to the average person, but easter always being on a sunday would provide an opportunity for the type of artist who always gets an expanded, larger window of communication every sunday.
here's the most controversial incident.
the washington post and LA times had already refused to run some of these explicitly christian strips. well, in 2001, he published this. its difficult to find a high res image of it online, so here's one where you can see how it would be printed, and one that's easier to read:
specifically the menorah burning out and being replaced by a cross made people... pretty mad. the ADL, the american jewish committee, and a bunch of people got really mad, and some newspapers refused to run the strip. i think some even ran it with a disclaimer but i cant find it
his distributor released a statement that basically amounted to, "uh, it's about christianity being rooted in judaism", and... that was basically it. its interesting that in a sense this could be one of the most controversial single newspaper comic strips that actually ran.
hart wrote BC until he died in 2007. interesting that these religious themes arent “incorporated”, theyre just explicitly straight up stated - even if it breaks the literal meaning of his title, which hart himself would probably deny: “B.C.”.
just a file in american art history
secretary has informed me that i called the good friday strips easter strips. i uh, meant easter-tide. or easter weekend.
anyway here's (i think) the only time i drew cavemen:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
a large component of new age is a kind of neo-shamanism. this centers around connection to ancestors, or the land your ancestors came from. it also centers around alternative forms of healing, often via plants. easy to run the numbers on how this is presently politically parsed.
average new age person (who wouldnt identify this way obviously) is skeptical of institutions (often specific things like banking, media), government, normal medicine, historical narratives - “new age” itself could easily, perhaps best, be modeled a type of meta-conspiracy theory
it would be essentially impossible to be “new age” or anything downstream of it without also being open to what we call conspiracy theories. this excludes them from most forms of totally acceptable social or political views at this time, often to their own confusion (no offense).
recently, i was discussing with a friend if children's general aversion to killing animals was innate, or a modern phenomenon. his response was that it's completely modern: in fact, it's intentionally implanted as a social control mechanism.
[...]
if you distance people from the process of obtaining their food, which entails slaughter, it's easier to control them.
obviously, i have no way of knowing if this is true, but i find this interesting because: i have it. despite my ideology, i have the aversion and always have.
he's showing me pictures on his phone of him butchering a pig: all the organs, the skin, everything. i have no problem with this: actually, i think it's cool, and eat more meat than the average person. but i still feel the slight spiritual recoil. was it spontaneously generated?
one noticeable aspect of older media is that to “be political” for normal people usually just meant adopting a particular niche cause, something like “save tigers”, and to be have the now common level of awareness about day to day politicians and events made you a politics junkie
there was a time within recent memory where being the “political friend” just meant that you thought people shouldnt throw plastic into the ocean. that was it.
‘jesus camp’ (the movie) was only released in 2006. notably in one segment a radio host, who is talking about politicized evangelical christians, says “these people aren’t politicos - they’re your friends and neighbors”. the idea of them “being political” was itself a novelty.
i was sitting in an office recently and looked down at a table of magazines. one had a decorated cake on the cover. i asked myself: is it real, or AI? all images will now be run through this hermeneutic. this is, literally, “dehumanizing”: to deprive of positive human qualities.
once again the AI image conversation should be steered away from “is it good or bad?”, “is it cool or lame?” (subjective, no way to prove these) towards: what does it mean? what does it do? but this angle is less explosively polarizing and more difficult to get attention with.
one time i worked at a traveling art exhibition. it was billed as art from egyptian tombs, but it was actually recreations of the art found in egyptian tombs. this was crazy unethical but i got the job via a long convoluted process accidentally, then quit.
zygmunt bauman (modern social theorist) says that the constantly shifting and unclear nature of our time period also applies to interpersonal relationships: no one is quite sure what it means, specifically, to be a parent, a grandparent, a friend, a coworker, and so on.
[…]
this sounds nonsensical at first - we can define all these terms easily: what a friend or grandparent is. but no one is clear on the obligations that these relationships entail, their day to day norms, what is expected, what assumptions are being made on either side: all unclear.
you see this a lot with present discussions about new parents looking to their parents to step into the role of grandparent. what does that look like, specifically? what is to be expected? this is a huge source of frustration and tension for many people, with no clear answer.
photos instead of paintings (all this was later removed):
this is one of my favorite image parings to show people. in person when you swipe back and forth you can sometimes see it rewire something in their brain about america. same room in the white house, before and after: