Putting pencil to paper is how it all starts.
Since that fateful day in 1938 when
Superman bounded into life in the first issue of Action Comics, artists and
illustrators have found themselves pre-occupied with the burning desire to
create superheroes. Designing these characters, the worlds they protect and how
they can live in context with words on a page is an art in itself - and comic
book artists have a huge and worldwide following. These 'gods amongst geeks,' if you will, range from British trailblazer Dave Gibbons to American legend Jack Kirby.
Comics are often derided as a 'low' art form, but they boast a massive
influence on pop culture, with huge blockbusters, all
based on panels in print.
Perhaps due to their apparent ability to get inside our heads. They harness our memories and use them to implant new ones – by requiring our brains to build connections between words and pictures, and also between panels, not merely one panel after another in sequence, but in networks across each page and through an entire book. This makes them a powerful tool of communication and education.
Comics have always had
their critics, and what lies behind many of their objections is a peculiar
resistance to this blending of prose and pictures.
In 1766 German critic Gotthold Lessing wrote Laocoon, in which he compared "the limits of
painting and poetry" (w.p.). Lessing asserted that painting works in space
and depicts one moment perceived all at once, whereas poetry is apprehended
in time and so can depict a succession of moments. Lessing therefore insisted
that painting and poetry be kept entirely apart to avoid tainting each other
and turning a painting into "a speaking picture" or a text
into "a freakish kind of writing". Keeping writing and drawing pure,
keeping text unillustrated, keeping painting unsullied by verbiage or any
sort of "reading," would become 'credos' of both the literary and art
establishments. First translated into English in 1836, Lessing's separatist
theory is still being read, taught and believed.
Critic John Walsh decried them as "a bastard version of the real thing." In his view, "good novels are made of words, without drawings that helpfully show the expressions on characters' faces" (w.p.). But complexity is possible through the counterpoints, contrasts and contradictions between what is written and what is shown. The tired argument that comics visualize too much and prevent readers from exercising their own imaginations ignores the fact that creators rely on the audience's active participation to interpret and animate what unfolds within and between the panels. In comics, there is nothing without the reader's imagination.
Walsh continued: "It's cruel but true: illustrations in novels are for children, or those who have trouble keeping up" (w.p.).
Coined in 1964, the label "graphic novel" enabled comics to rebrand themselves and encourage adults to approach them in new ways, but this term has proved problematic, and is loathed by many creators and readers. Try as they might, the graphic forms of the novel can't help being subversive of the prose-only novel tradition by daring to question the superiority of words. What disconcerts the literati is that the graphic novelist does not have to resort to copious textual descriptions, but can convey a concrete visual image directly and clearly to readers. What gives comics their force and their danger is that the images are always there, to be looked at as long and as often as the reader chooses, contradicting the notion that comics lend themselves only to speed-reading, and so are not conducive to reflection.
If I had to weigh in on this subject I would look for evidence about brain activity while reading compared to reading comics. There are many comics that take up very little brainpower to consume but the same can be said about page turners or simple prose. Some comics I like actually take a lot of brain power. One of my favorites "Blade of the Immortal" is chalk full of art that must be interpreted in order to understand the prose. Telling this story in a comic also helps the reader not get bogged down in the very precise and lightning fast action scenes. I prefer to write in pros and will general defend it over visual media but I defend visual media nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteIn the anime community there is an ongoing debate about light novels vs manga. light novels are pretty much the Japanese equivalent to young adult novels, but their adaptations are generally less highly regarded then those based on manga. For the most part my favorite anime is actually a light novel adaptation but it it's an exception in more ways than one. Part of this comes from the creativity in design that comes with manga since it has to stand out on the shelves on its art alone most of the time and there is a need to keep readers coming back month after month.
Signed Cory Smith
I also addressed the issue of separation between literature and visual art in my own blog. It is interesting that there is such a sense of fear associated with the blending of genres and mediums. Granted, the unknown is scary - and those who are passionate about the continuance of either side might be concerned that their respective medium would be jeopardized if it were thrown into the mix with others. But has that ever really happened? Has something been completely destroyed by it being meshed together with things from other genres? Sure, whatever is created might be 'bad'or not super enjoyable, but it probably won't tear down the foundations of what already exists. In terms of comic books/graphic novels, they haven't ruined art or literature. There will always be people out there who like those elements separately, so I certainly see no harm in combining them.
ReplyDeleteI think your point about a reader's imagination translates to any viewer experience of some kind of art. Whether it be a play, a concert, a gallery or a novel - the person experiencing it has to have some kind of imagination in order to get the most out of it. Imagine watching a play without being able to transport yourself to that other world that is being portrayed, it'd be very boring (and probably confusing). The same thing goes for any other type of art. Like you said, the audience needs to participate and become involved in the piece in order for it to come to life.
Cassie
Great post! I like how you address the criticism that comics face, have examples of people negatively critiquing the art form, then using both imagery and text to demonstrate the art of 'graphic novels'. With the example of John Walsh saying, "good novels are made of words, without drawings that helpfully show the expressions on character's faces", I am reminded how how McCloud demonstrates this history of 'sequential storytelling' that dates back to before writing, which to helped me to solidify comics as a true art form. As well as the argument that "comics visualize too much", I am reminded of how McCloud uses the example of 'The Gutter' to demonstrate methods that comic authors invite the reader to use their imagination and get them involved.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely love the image you ended this post with. What is it from? It's hard to argue that that is not a true form of art. I am wondering if you think that comics will ever be more widely accepted as a true form of art? It seems to me that people quickly dismiss them, but that seems to common with new art forms. For example when TV was introduced, people considered TV less as an art form than radio. I am reading a book about the history of comedy and even when radio was first introduced, people were critical of it. It seems people are always critical of new methods of art, but I am wondering why comics haven't caught on, when "comics" predate most text.