“The world of Comics is a huge and varied one” was one of the opening lines Scott McCloud set with his first book in appraising sequential art as an art medium Understanding Comics: the Invisible Art. With this, he began his first of three books that was to draw people into the subtle workings of the graphic novel. My own interpretation of his man’s teachings came with what I could concentrate on with his illustrated textbook, knowing the man through only the lens of his craft as opposed to what the man himself was trying to convey. However, this view was to change when I was to see his live explanation of sequencing events on his lecture during one “Ted Talk” shown in class.
Scott McCloud, in his demonstration, noted the philosophies and theories he developed in appreciating sequential art, most notably also stated in his book previously stated. This ranged from how taking in a visual medium and applying the other senses to but one input to his views on how technological advances would change the means to which one would intake sequential art. He also noted his colorful back story of how his family was supportive of his life path and how though his family is noted to be those in scientific fields he can relate to them as he views sequential art follows the same rules of logic as other sciences. Yet, as sequential art and graphic novels tied early statements to later resolutions, his seemingly mundane statements would tie to his later teachings.
Most noted I took from the book and from the presentation was his take on the triad of representation that is “Reality, Language and the Picture Plane.” With this, he proposed that all styles of representation in art fell to this triad, ranging from the realistic portrayal of the human design in paintings to the almost post-Modern approach to art in purely representational form in the Picture Plane to the calligraphic appreciation of art seen in simple words as with Language. For him, graphic novel representations fall within this triad as comics are a medium amalgamating the aspects of the triad to the viewed audience. In addition to this, he stressed his views to which comics aim as art does to emphasize four major categories of discipline: The Classicalists, the Animists, the Formalists and the Iconoclasts. To abridge the points he wishes to get across, the first emphasize ascetic beauty, the second content of work, the third the form to which the comic takes and the last reliability to real life. To how these four disciplines interact with the triad of representations was demonstrated with the different illustrations. For example, sequential Art that aimed to convey a more visual representation that thus was more appealing to the casual audience had its influence in the Classicalists, which in turn leaned towards the Picture Plane of the triad. While he continued on with his personal philosophies on sequential art, I found it more compelling that he noted sequential art wasn’t a new phenomenon.
With this, the personal views one could take is that there are some merits towards the means to how McCloud categorizes the different stratums of sequential art. After all, what is the comic art? Is it mere pictures with words on the side? Is the words given with the picture a means of art in itself and should be seen as an extension of the work? Could something as simple as an illustration of a chair and the word “chair” by it be considered a comic? Actually, given that a “comic” is one who tells jokes such a term is itself incorrect. Rather, one should note that whether said illustration of a chair and the word “chair” by it be considered a piece of sequential art? (Actually, since contemporary people considered illustrations with words a comic I think it’s best to just readjust one’s terms to calling sequential art “comics,” though the debate of whether a comic is the best term for said illustrations is still up to debate)
While McCloud’s statements of the degree to which sequential art is noted by said triad, it begs the question where does the supposed “word bubble” fit into the spectrum. He noted that words in themselves are to be treated as its own category where illustration thus becomes more like audio words. However, the visual aesthetics of hand lettered words at least have the merit, in relations to the space given with it or the “word bubble,” to warrant as its own illustration. If a word is given a word bubble that in relation to it makes it an illustration, does the word along with the word bubble become more like illustration rather than lettering?
In addition to this, to subdivide the categories of focus into four disciplines may be generalizing the principle of sequential art. As sequential art has its roots towards presentation as opposed to individual pieces of art, there cannot be a distinct categorization based solely on the aesthetic panels. What if there were photos rather than drawn pictures in the panels? Would that overcome the realistic portion of his categories as no longer being drawn pieces but rather photos in a collage?
Regardless, there is merit to his system and the means to his presentation conveying how sequential art adapts over the span of human artistry. Suffice to say, it can be inferred that much can be learnt from said statements. With his triad of depth and the four disciplines, McCloud was able to categorize sequential art in a system that had empirical merit to it, a task few comic artists have been able to do.
Bibliography
McCloud, Scott. Understanding Comics. New York: HarperPerennial, 1994. Print
McCloud, Scott. "Scott McCloud: Understanding Comics - YouTube." Scott McCloud: Understanding Comics. Youtube.com, 14 Jan. 2009. Web. 29 Jan. 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment