Well here, in two sentences, is his essential thesis:
|
Creative works are not only the product of people, they're also the products of a time and place. As the world keeps changing, it is impossible to recreate something from the past.
|
His examination of the cartoon in question and his specific arguments, however, support one of his contentions - that a creative work is the product of specific people (and he cites specific examples for animation, design and music) - and none for the conclusion that he then leaps to, which is that "changes in the world" or the
passage of time make it impossible to recreate a particular style of art.
I'm not saying whether I think that is or isn't so or that there aren't such arguments to be made - to some extent, this is false duality - but I just don't see him offering any support by example or analysis that supports this in its essence. If I wasn't rushing out the door I could probably come up with one or two using, oh,
Young Frankenstein as an example.
Pastiche for its own sake never rises above pastiche, whether the example being aped was made forty years or three weeks ago.