comics – textual media

My Lost Blog About Physcial vs. Mental Interactivity

When some people think of an interactive art form, they intuitively think of literature and painting in a digital format. They think that as long as an art form can be physically interacted with through their laptop’s keyboard or mouse it has to be interactive – like ergodic literature and cybertext. People often forget that there is a different type of interactivity, one that has been around for thousands of years, and as such predates and is the precursor for the digital era’s physical interactivity. As Scott McCloud had proved it in the context of comic books, there is a sort of mental interaction between people and a given art.

While McCloud didn’t spend a lot of time on addressing the issue of interactivity with his concept of closure, he did inadvertently question the novelty of the interactive digital art forms. After all how can interactivity be a novel idea if it has been around for thousands of years in the form of various arts – albeit in a different form?

It’s not a novel idea, however, some people forget that because they take their psyche’s gift for granted. They believe that in a book words and sentences give rise to what they envision – which is true in a sense – but forget about how their psyches contributes to what they see. If reading was not interactive than we would all envision a book’s events the same way, but are there any two people who had read the same book and in the end had imagined the events the same way? I don’t think so. Not unless they have an identical psyche – a prospect that is impossible.

Andre Bazin, a renowned French theorist from the 20^th century, had argued that nothing can be more interactive than reading a book, because the reader is part of the book and the book is part of the reader, due to the reader’s gift to convert words into unique images. Thus interactivity is not a novel idea, only the concept of physical interactivity is.

Comic Book As A Genre

I grew up on graphic novels and mangas, however, I never read a book about the theories behind the conventions of the art form. I knew about the phenomenon of having a detailed background in mangas with simplified characters, but I had no idea that artists had named that concept “masking.” Thus I enjoyed Scott McCloud’s “Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art,” because it allowed me to develop a deeper appreciation and respect for a genre that I love – a genre that for far too long had suffered from self-esteem issues.

I do disagree with McCloud on one point, however, namely the one where he tries to define comics as juxtaposed pictorial and other images in a deliberate sequence intended to convey information and to produce an aesthetic response in the viewer. McCloud should have used this definition to define a different word. One that encompasses everything from scroll paintings and mangas to graphic novels and comics.

Yes, I believe that the word “comics” should only designate a genre and be part of that word – whatever that word may be. Why, because of the connotation that the word “comics” had developed over the years. When you say the word “comics,” 90% of the people will be thinking of the same thing: one of Marvel’s or D.C.’s comic books. Not of Frank Miller’s graphic novel and certainly not of Kentaro Miura’s manga, and if you dare to compare it to one of Gu Kaizhi scroll paintings, then you are bound to fail. Trying to alter a preconception that had developed about comics in the past four decades is almost impossible.

When artists, like Frank Miller, feels offended when someone does not refer to him as graphic novelists, and when Barns&Nobles and Borders barely sells any Marvel or D.C. comic books, but is filled with hundreds of mangas – under the title of “manga” – it’s time to declare comics a separate genre. Let’s leave Spiderman and Batman to their own devices, and see if they can help the world of comic books to become as respected as their film adaptations – or enjoy the prestige of graphic novels and mangas.

Understanding Comics

I have to admit that I was hesitant to read this book. I’ve never been a huge fan of comics, aside from my childhood love of “Calvin & Hobbes”. I have never opened a graphic novel or actual comic book- not because I thought I was too good for it or thought of it as lowly, but because I was never interested enough to pick one up. So far I am enjoying reading the book. It presents comics in a fresh light that I truly had not considered before. I knew that skillful drawing was usually involved (obviously) but I had not realized how complex the process was. To manage both a storyline that captures interest and pictures that appeal to the eye is a difficult thing to accomplish.

I enjoyed the tone of the book. For a profession that is often looked down upon by other artists, cartoonists seem to have a good sense of humor. I liked that the author noted how hesitant cartoon artists are to call themselves that. The stigma involved is something that I had not considered prior to reading this. Now that I think about it, it is fairly easy to imagine a “normal” artist looking down on a cartoon artist. It led me to imagine two pictures in my mind: one of the typical artist, snobby and pompous, and the other of a cartoon artist, good-humored and earnest. Reading this portion allowed me to empathize with how hard a cartoon artist’s work really is, and the little amount of credit they receive for it. It also explains why so many people (adults as well as children) are fanatical in their worship of these drawings that tell stories.

What we’ve read so far has already made me reconsider what I consider comics to be. Before I thought of them as humorous little pictures that tell a simple story, or make cheesy jokes within a limited number of panels. Already I’ve been forced to amend that view: comics are much more complicated than I thought they were, and they deserve more credit than I had anticipated.

“Understanding Comics” by Scott McCloud – Blog #5

What I quickly began to enjoy about Scott McCloud’s “Understanding Comics” was how it was presented, and the self-encouraging humor it had about itself.

I say self-encouraging, because although the comic made several jokes about itself and the presentation of comics, none of it was necessarily self-deprecating. It all was made with the understanding that comics, their limitations, their styles and what exists beyond their panels is not something to be ashamed about, but rather are things to appreciate and poke affectionate fun.

Before I go on, I should probably admit a few things: I am an avid fan of animation, and have been ever since I was a young child. My first drawing – aside from a cat with nine legs (and I’ll maintain to this day that my 2-year-old self was simply attempting to draw the cat in motion) – was Ariel from Disney’s “The Little Mermaid.” By growing up in what many now call the animation renaissance of the of 1980s, it became a primary passion in my life that continues today with works from Don Bluth, Hayao Miyazaki or Pixar.

So with that grounding in the world of moving pictures, I have an avid appreciation for comics as well. In many ways, I mirrored McCloud’s early sentiments in his book about the western cultural depreciation of comics as competent story-telling devices or art. But as mentioned before, he did it in such a charming way.

The first hint of his tongue-and-cheek approach (aside from the short and sweet introduction punchline) began on page 24. “This is not a pipe” is a very familiar piece of work from all my art history experience and dedicated visits to art museums, and he did well to connect it to the dilemma of comic books.

“Do you hear what I’m saying? If you do, have your ears checked, because no one said a word.”

Moving on, another presentation of this dilemma I appreciated occurred much later on page 48, when McCloud told the story of the artist and writer coming together to make the greatest piece of storytelling of all time. I found myself emphathizing for each during their long, hard roads in becomming artisans of their craft, then giggle at the bottom punchline when the two stared at each other with a broad, empty expanse between them and large questionmarks over their heads.

This brought me more and more into thinking, and I stayed glued to the text to the very end. Later on, I greatly appreciated the differences and comparisons to eastern and western comic styles, since I too have noticed the differences but did not realize it could be graphically represented in… well, graphs. I resolved to try grading comics myself with this method in the future. After this, I also noted the publication date of 1993 of McCloud’s book, and quickly recalled many comics and works of animation that have appeared since then. One that specifically came to mind was the recent blockbuster “V For Vendetta,” which many may be surprised to know was derived from what western cultures call a “graphic novel,” or what I like to think of as a way of them to say “so not a comic book.”

Another example I thought of which he actually directly mentioned was “Akira,” which later became a very successful movie adaptation in Japan in 1988, but I was not sure whether it had made its way into the States by 1993. A quick imdb search told me that it did not see wide American release until 2001, so no.

I bring this up because both of these movies, while nestled in their social niches, were still commercial successes in the United States, a place where comic books are only considered for young boys – as McCloud lamented – and only depict grown, muscular men in tights. While this may be true in many ways in western comics, other areas of the world have evolved differently, which proves to me that comics are a limitless media when it comes to depicting art and writing – the difference is how the creators choose to present it, and how the readers open their own minds to receive it.

I look forward to reading more of McCloud’s “Understanding Comics,” because it at times coincides so well with my own feelings on the subject.

Scott McCloud, Understanding Comics, pages 1-137

I am not sure where to begin on my blog regarding McCloud’s review on comics. I guess I can start on my early childhood—while I never recall going to buy comics or being highly interested in them, I was exposed to them early on. I had a few close friends, one was interested in video games, another liked reptiles and other animals and the third liked comic books. Therefore, whenever I had visited my friend I would checkout the various comic books that were lying around. Some comic books were wrapped in plastic jackets and were not meant to be opened. While I understand the meaning to keep a first edition copy or valuable book in a jacket, how does that help someone explore comic books if you never open it up?

I have read a few comics here and there in my early childhood; however as far as I remember I did not ever own any—they were more of a curiosity to me, something I checked out at the bookstore. However, in the local paper, I used to read one or two of them, the ones that were in color in my early teens, I believe there was a comic that had related to technology and back in the early 1990s, it was quite funny to see comical depictions of technology in the newspapers.

Reading this book so far is an interesting experience; I learned a few new things and have a little bit more appreciation for comics than I did. First off, the author’s main gripe is authors of comics do not get any respect, this seems true, based on his evidence and there are not many awards for them as compared to music artists or actors in movies. I thought the introduction was excellent going back to the first comic-like depictions and then disseminating what they mean, this was very interesting.

A couple notes on the physical layout and form of the book for the part to read for next week. First, a couple nice touches were added to this, one example is when you open the page for the first chapter — both sides are completely black. I am not sure the last time I saw something like this before, it brings a unique quality to this, I think it gets the reader ready, telling him that this is not going to be a normal read. I think telling the story of comic books within the format of one is an excellent way to get the reader both interested and help the reader understand the concepts presented. If we were to read a textbook-like paper about this with few or no graphical images dealing with the comics themselves, it would be much more difficult to understand.

A few other notes, around page 32-34, the author explains our perception of the world and how we perceive everything as a face or having emotion in some way and then he provides examples, this was very funny and true. And ahh..! on page 36, there is the picture of the author himself! He is very right in his point as well when he asks “Would you have listened to me if I looked like this?” So true! I find his generic equivalent much more interesting, according to him because I relate that imagery more to myself. The car accident analogy was also a good—when one gets in a car accident, it’s the other person hit “me” and not their car hit my car, etc, this helped to ingrain his point even more (38). One last item, something new I learned, the space in between the imagery in comics is called the “gutter” (66). Another new item learned was the different types of comics outlined on page 74 and how most follow the formats in 2-4. Overall, a fun and enjoyable read, although I think he noted on the first page it took him 15 months to put it together, yet it does not take very long to get through the first part of the book!