In “roadrunner” cartoons Wile E. Coyote attempts to catch the local “geococcyx californianus”. Since the bird’s advantage is superior speed in escape, Wile believes he must depend on technology to even the playing field. He orders bizarre equipment from Acme. Unfortunately, when he tries to use the equipment, it backfires. He gets hurt. The roadrunner goes free.
The use of technology is the problem, not technology itself.
A “leap of faith” toward either a scientific or a religious “absolute” offers no certainty and often puts one at the bottom of the canyon along with Wile.
3 Wile is Sisyphus.*
*Although I go to Wikipedia mainly to find where to find a better reference, this notation I found there is remarkable.
Wile’s plans always backfire because it is funny. It wouldn’t be funny if he actually caught the roadrunner, and his plans worked. It’s funny because no matter how much he plans and no matter how sophisticated he plans, he fails.
It’s not a huge philosophical statement about life. It’s just comedy.
Now, an exploration of comedy and humor might revel some interesting philosophy.
“Perhaps I know best why it is man alone who laughs; he alone suffers so deeply that he had to invent laughter.” -Friedrich Nietzsche
Jeez Mr. Buzzkill. What if it weren’t a comedy. What if you made a CG movie of a coyote and a road runner that were animated to look practicaly real and employed the same hunter-prey tactics as in the cartoon, but without the stupid comment handsigns and fake sound effects? Keep the technology keep the scenery. A real (animated) coyote and a real (animated) road runner. Throw in some dramatic music. You’d have the same plot, just different way of telling it.
Does cartoonification negate philosophical merit?
Sisyphus kind of entails a life on pure obligatory monotony, which is not exactly why WEC has in the cartoon. WEC could pursue something else. It’s his grudge against the road runner that fuels his fire i think.
I’m not saying it’s philosophically void because it’s animated or because it’s a cartoon. I’m saying it’s philosophically void because the purpose is comedy not philosophy. The creators were not producing something with a philosophical statement; they were producing something that was funny.
What happened to the coyote happened because it is funny.
That sounds quite cynical and closed minded. Your argument spits in the face of modern art.
“It doesn’t symbolize solitude and segregation! Its a fucking red dot surrounded by nothing but white space!”
What I’m reading out of you is “interpretation is bunk, the only thing that matters is the exact message of the creator, straight from the horse’s mouth”. How accurate is that?
Picture an army whose weapons keep breaking:
“Oh dude the weapons we keep sending for never work. This is just like that cartoon with the coyote and the road runner. Maybe we can learn a moral from that.”
“No you are wrong. This is in no way related and you cannot take that moral from it. The animators intended that cartoon to be funny. And since our situation is not funny, there is no moral value to be had from that cartoon.”
Whatever you want to call it the cartoon is an artistic venture as legal stipulations would declare it. It’s clearly being disseminated. Dissemination of art is a legitamete practice of philosophy. So it has merit to the literalist as well. I don’t suppose the post was intended for strict logicians, and probably not so palatteable to loyal Nietzchens.
Either way, there’s other places to derail the merit of an original post’s question. In a thread, I think the response is required to reflect on the qustion, whatever it is. (Even if reflecting simply adds to more questions.)
It’s clear that the cartoonist wanted to play on the absurdities of an obsessive planner. Intelligent in devising elaborate ways, but clearly in line with the clinical definition of insanity. (The insane person continuously repeats the same sort of action expecting different results. Like catching the roadrunner even though all past attempts failed.) Likewise, the common applications of technology have often reflected the patterns of a lunatic. Building more weapons expecting a new means of peace.
The grounds for debate is too abstract to really draw conclusion. But you can’t deny this old gig has become exhaustively referred to by lots of intellectual writing. Tell me to search, and I suppose I’ll look.
Who knows. Maybe the crazy stupid cartoon will one day be lectured as bored kids hit their heads asking why it’s so important they learn. Just like . . . that annoying little wretch named Socrates, pestering everyone in Athens as they walked by wondering if they should really take time and talk to the poor old coot. Who knew he’d inspire the eventual University of Oxford?
I have to admit, alex. I feel drawn to disseminate from a cartoon more than from a red dot. Just my joys I guess?
I disagree, Sisyphus knew what would happen, he has no hope whatsoever.
WEC, although failing every time, still keeps the hope of catching Roadrunner.
This is a big difference.
I don’t see the connection between the roadrunner cartoons and modern art. The point of roadrunner is to entertain children not convey artistic expression.
A person can use anything be it a picture of a red dot or a children’s cartoon as an analogy or symbol to express themselves artistically, but that doesn’t make the cartoon artistic. I can use an inanimate object of inhuman creation as a symbol to express myself artistically or philosophically, such as a rock, but the rock itself wasn’t art or philosophical. Art is created by humans and philosophy is done by humans.
I think someone can create a picture of a red dot as form of art to express solitude and such. And, many animations have been used to explore philosophy and such–including a lot of anime for example. However, I believe the roadrunner cartoon is a comic display and not a collection of philosophical statements.
It’s no more artistically philosophical than jokes about dumb blonds.
Granted, this is a fun discussion we are having now.
That was inspired. There are so many variables to this presentation, I don’t even know where to start. I guess I will just imagine Wile happy, for the moment, while I ponder the ramifications of this little piece of brilliance you just presented.
I thought my point was pretty clear, but i guess not. Allow me to recapitulate.
The WEC cartoon, as Gaiaguerrilla mentioned, depicts a personality (Wile) who time after time attempts to catch another personality (the road runner), and NEVER succeeds. Pretend you are watching this cartoon with your 3 year old son and try to not turn to him and say something like “See son you can learn from this cartoon. If your attempts to accomplish your goal never work, you should find a different goal.”<---- This right here is a moral. It is a life lesson that you can take and apply. Just because the animators did not sit down and say “Ok now how can we depict this moral?” does not mean that the moral is nonexistent. And how the hell do you know that they didn’t have that in mind from the beginning?
The use of the Red Dot painting was me trying to make a point. Interpretation is subjective and it is not something that can only happen if the creator wills it to. Interpretation happens, just like shit. Have you ever read the bible, or known someone who has? This piece of “literature” is interpreted and cherry picked all up and down and all around. And don’t throw this tangent out, it applies. Or what about the US Constitution? Or a lease? Do these not apply because they are not “Art”?
Something which does not appeal to me is not art. I cannot disseminate from non-art. Art is criteriorized by including zombie mutant aliens. Your red dot is not a zombie mutant alien. Therefore it can’t appeal to me, therefore not art, therefore cannot be disseminated. On the other hand Bugs Bunny has, I think, a zombie mutant alien at some point somewhere.
Of course you may yet convince me that the red dot is a zombie mutant alien.
There alex. Now you must argue with me and ScottHughes
All this talk about what can and can not be done in lieu of “art”, but so far no one has defined what “art” is. Don’t give examples to define it, give a definition.
You can find a moral in the cartoon, but that doesn’t make the cartoon philosophical or artistic. Like I gave in my example, you could use an inanimate rock (that is not made by humans) and use it in an analogy to explain morals or just make an artistic expression. In these cases, it isn’t the rock or roadrunner cartoons that are artistic or philosophical, but rather your use of them that is philosophical or artistic. The creators of the roadrunner cartoon are not the philosophers; we who philosophically use the cartoon (or anything such as an inanimate rock) in our analogies are philosophers.
Then I suppose it’s fair to say that Ierrellus is making a philosophical dissemination. The cartoon is not. I have no trouble with that statement. I do wonder about the phrase “philosophically void” as though it is (P)hilosophy ~P. . .
(P / ~P). How do we logically decipher the P from the ~P? We could say that P has alternate motive from ~P. ~P could make a skit for fast money from impulsive humour-lovers and commercial suckers without any authority demanding more reason in its content. P must have some establishment overseeing its merit. Still, the difference is too relative. It’s a gauge more than a switch.
I don’t think it’s void. I think it lacks philosophical merit. Dissemination of art, being only a specific field of philosophy, also doesn’t earn so much merit in the grand scope of philosophy. I think philosophically void is synonymous to oblivion or immaterial, just like “meaningless” “pointless” “irrelevant” Terms too ultimate by putting a “no” instead of a “lack.”
I just stumbled onto this board and I am reading through this thread and I am stumped. A gaggle of philosophers, arguing about if a cartoon can be interpreted in a philosophical manner. To throw in my two bits, I would say what can’t be? A leaf? Sidhartha (not sure on that spelling) drawing insights from a riverbank, well no no that can’t be right. The original poster drawing an insight from a cartoon character, well that can’t be philosophical? Is there a predefined checklist that I have not yet found, listing the criteria for a variable to be validly interpreted as having philosophical merit? It may not have been the animators original intent to create a work of art that would cause these thoughts, but does that discredit it from being a valid thought? By drawing yet another imaginary line separating this from that, this can be and that can’t be, seems to be another perpetuation of how we all got in this damn mess. I am never going to take sides or say this is right or that is wrong, because I cannot say with certainty. I am very happy though, that there are other people out there who are thinking. I just encourage you all to think your own thoughts, what you think is much more important that what you read in a book. It directly affects your personal reality. In closing, I am just saying what I think and I don’t have any good quotes from old dead guys or books, I am just a dumbass electrician who thinks too much.
