They're Action Figures!

This post is dedicated to the brilliant Scott McCloud. I thought about the difference between what is considered "graphic novel" and "comic"; hence the title. Figurines, action figures, barbies. When words and stories are given to them, they perform action. In chapter six, it wasn't just about image and text, but also about the stigma that goes along with 'comics': their purpose, the culture that pervades them, and the way the art of comics is viewed by the public versus those who understand McCloud's argument. My favorite part out of the reading:

(Obviously). This kid is adorable. Somehow, McCloud was able to make him identifiable to us with the complete opposite of exaggerated expression. The words, barely any changes in his body language, and the subtle changes and interjections from the teacher (off screen) made it exactly clear and imaginable. Without the words, he wouldn't have had any kind of story. This generally is my favorite type of comic, because I've always been a huge fan of Garfield. (Generally the same environment, little change in movement or expression, but the words do the rest of the work). I find that type of comic brilliant, because the words allow the reader/viewer to project his or her own nuanced interpretations onto the character. To a darkly sarcastic person such as I am, Garfield has a whole attitude, a disposition that has developed over the time I grew up reading the comics. I began to think "Garfield wouldn't do that, because he's Garfield" when anything demanding effort would present itself to him. Then, later, I heard a joke that Garfield was a stoner, and because he looks out of it, grumpy and lazy (and always has the munchies) I started to see him that way too! 

But 'graphic novels' create an entirely different idea in my head. There is a class here in the English Department called Graphic Novels, which I have unfortunately never had time to take. I read some of the course material through a friend's recommendation and wondered if graphic novels were simply just more dark. But it really is just an extended comic. Sequential action, all of the types of ways to convey the passing of time or an idea are necessary of course in the graphic novel. But it's not a haiku, it's a novel. It would make sense that each page or two isn't a few panels and a punch line. I also wondered if it had anything to do with the art style of both comics and graphic novels. It really doesn't. Lynda Barry for example, has a very pronounced cartoon style, but maintains an overarching story in One Hundred Demons. Each chapter is a skit or scene, out of order when compared to each other, but all before a certain age in her life with themes of love, family and identity were rampantly in question and upheaval in her life. 

I really enjoyed Scott McCloud's work here. Not only is it dynamic for the short attention spans of current college students, but it's also highly informative, comprehensible, entertaining and metacognitive. My actual favorite page(s) where a little less like Garfield and more of a grateful relief that someone drew it and acknowledges it. 

I really enjoy when people vocalize a stigma, yet it bothers me that it doesn't really change anything. I had a really good friend who seemed to know... everything. Turns out, he had several volumes of world history in a crate under his bed that he would read whenever he couldn't sleep. They were comics! I found myself getting really into the story of Muhammed and the Mongolians and even the cavemen. The comics were what kept me interested, entertained, and aided buying into the comical thought that humans have been and always will be ultimately the same. I have retained those historical facts and dates better than any other approach. This surprised me, sadly. But we connect words to images and things. Words stand for things just as images do, but the signifier and signified are different things: the signifier (the word: chair) versus the actual pictorial or physical chair that the word is referring to. In language classes we are shown pictures of objects or the signified that the words represent, rather than just a list of translated definitions. This is so that we associate the signifier word with the object because it is most direct. I find McCloud's argument hilarious because it's a no-brainer! Image and text have always been the same thing, though text is a term now for words. Ideographs, (some) cave paintings, hieroglyphics may not be called text but they function the same way as words do, by conveying an idea. I like the idea of ideographs (not to be redundant) and hieroglyphics because there is a dimension of complexity that comes from them that just words cannot offer. I learned about Chinese ideographs in the origins of the Taoist practice, and how so much of the belief system is based on characters (literally) in the symbols, performing an action, or literally a drawing of the object itself. Watching a drawing of a bull go to a pictograph to finally the calligraphy form of itself, made me rethink language entirely.

This is getting way too meta. But long story short, McCloud is a huge inspiration. The subtleties are where it's at! It's all in the tiny details. He does a great job of oscillating to and from very basic ideas to complex ones. The converging image and text allows him to create depth, layers and extra context to ideas that would otherwise need much more word development to achieve what he does here. And props to McCloud for the upper left hand corner of the second screenshot. I laughed! It's nice to hear an artist bring that to our attention, but also stick up for his art by reinstating its legitimacy through the perceptions of other comic artists. My reaction to MOMA was similar actually. Until I became 'educated' and then all the fun was taken out of it! 

I'm currently making comics with friends for fun (and seriousness). I illustrated for a comic my friend wrote called Bitter Hipster. He gave me the ideas and words, but it was up to me to show the scene. I had a panel for each hipster per age. I thought of McCloud as I was drawing it, because it is definitely us interdependent. Can't have one without the other! I had to put in the references to set the scene as well as develop facial expressions to add to a very minimalist script of dialogue. It was a really interesting challenge. Huge inspiration: Kevin Hooyman. If you don't know him, look him up. He has some really really deep thoughts with the strangest art. It's the best, and also made me cry in public with laughter. Here are a few shots form my favorite comics by him.

I could get this tattooed: 

The design aspect comes next, but that's a whole other thing. The tie between image and text is thoroughly understood to be the groundwork for all multimedia projects. Conveying ideas in certain ways is all it is!