I am positioned somewhere between the realization that comics has very seldom reached the heights of greatness other media have achieved and the desire to feel excitement about the things I did as a kid. There is so much potential for that excitement, but I'm always feeling let down. When I read Anna Karenina or listen to the VU's Heroin or watch Taxi Driver I don't ever have the sneaking suspicion that I'm letting my critical guard down, letting those works get away with something. Every once in a while ("I Never Liked You" by Chester Brown, Panter's Jimbo in Paradise, Krazy Kat , or King Cat, for example) I feel perfectly good about a comic - I don't feel like it looks pretty but tells me nothing (Windsor McKay) or tells me things but is in such poor taste (Watchmen) that it makes me roll my eyes.
Another part of me questions this expectation that things should be perfect and amazing to be "good." I feel that good bits lurk within the interstices, that I can read Frank Miller's "Dark Knight" and forget the pulpy underpinnings and the stupidity of treating superheroes "seriously" and just enjoy it. I think there are different types of culture that are good at different times, but I hate having to relegate comics to the junky part of myself. And it's a hard thing to do. Probably because I make comics and feel part of the "comics community," I feel a responsibility to hate Scott Pilgrim or whatever other mediocrity you can think of. I feel stupid giving Kirby a pass, for instance, when we could have comics as good a Pynchon novels or Barthelme stories or Will Oldham songs. And I honestly can't enjoy mediocre comics at all unless, like with Moore or Miller, I liked them as a kid (or something like Grant Morrison that resembles what I liked as a kid).
I want to think of art as a process and not the product of that process. Part of me thinks that calling "comic a" good and "comic b" not good is bullshit because isn't this all subjective anyway? Another part of me thinks that subjectivism is a way to avoid thinking critically and go with the flow and be nice, etc. Because some things are better than others, right? But is art a Darwinistic competition? Maybe not, but it would be much easier to be comfortable feeling that way if I read any comics on a regular basis.
And I want to feel good like Austin does, but I think about how depressed I was at the Stumptown comics fest, being a little fish in a mediocre pond, and I know that I'm just pretending.
There are an infinite number of ways to represent things or ideas visually. It's surprising that the history of comics rarely strays from a few archetypes. And these archetypes often yield very pretty results, but, though I can be amazed and awed at the skill and technical proficiency required to make a comic, that doesn't make it art.
There are an infinite number of ways to combine words and pictures, but rarely is there subtlety or complexity.
I like culture, but I think I only like comics because I've always liked them. I can't defend them. Sorry.
So, yes, "do it," but really fucking do it!. Imagine how awesome Gilbert Hernandez's comics would be now if he were really taken seriously.
75 comments:
I really enjoyed reading this. I found myself agreeing with a lot of it. I think it is good to be skeptical of comics in every way. They are often so "precious" in the strangest way. I can't even look at Jack Kirby or Gilbert Hernandez. Should I feel guilty for that? A lot of times I can't even look at my own comics. I think it is healthy to have genuine strong, negative feelings about things that, some days, seem so beautiful and perfect. Sometimes, as much as I truly love a lot of comics and just the idea of comics themselves, looking at them gives me an empty, nauseous feeling, and I feel like I am a fake and a liar. John Stanley seems like a god some days and other days I think, "I don't care about this, why does anyone care about this?" I love comics more than anything in my life, I think, in a completely unhealthy way, but I also hate them. Maybe loving them causes me to hate them? I think there should be more skeptical negativity and open-minded questioning in comics. It's OK to hate the Katzenjammer Kids. For all the amazing things comics do, most of what they do is horrible and confusing. I'm often baffled by others comics and my own comics in a huge way. I'm a timid rabbit in a cold cave. For every ounce of comics love there is comics fear. I don't know if you feel this same way, Jason, but it seems like you might, sort of. I have been trying to figure out how to put this into words for a long time but it looks like you sort of did.
I should probably stop now but I wanted to point out that I attended a comics school for two years, CCS, and a lot of the comics positivity there seems to revolve around the "social" aspect of it that usually seems all wrong, almost completely at odds with the feelings I get from most comics. That may deeply inform some of the negative feelings I have about comics.
It's vague and weird and I can't properly put it into words.
I'm usually intimidated about posting here. I love this blog. Sorry if this is awful.
I wish you would leap over the wall instead of running into it over and over and over again.
@dane
interacting with the comics community (and medium) can be totally discouraging, and i'm glad you can maybe get some solace out of this blog.
seems like what is most awesome about comics is kind of ineffable, and best reached by making them yourself. which is no small feat, but neither is good criticism.
@jason,
you mentioned a lot of stuff about quality, which seems soooo relative to me.
such a "gut" thing, which is how i can give other folks the benefit of the doubt usually about what they think is good or bad. my tastes change every day and i hope they never stop.
but of course, it's hard to form a concrete stance with such a sketchy barometer of taste. but it keeps me open to new things, i reckon. i think the specific examples are just yours to struggle with, and maybe that's a good thing for you? you get to put some things away and continue the search.
There are genuine works of brilliance, but the modern medium is still young, and there's no money/fame/point of it relative to other mediums, so it hasn't attracted very much triple-A talent. Movies are just as young, but they're the HOT THING right now, so they get Ozu, Hitchcock, Tarkovsky, Bresson, Kubrick, Malick and everyone else good, and we get the weirdo losers who are accidental geniuses scribbling in a corner. It's just the way it is. You shouldn't have to make excuses for it, and it shouldn't be such a terrible thing. Just read what you like and leave the rest alone. It's honestly not that big of a deal.
I read Jimmy Corrigan the other day for the first time and I thought 'this is probably the best comic that has been made'. That's it.. that's how far comics have gotten. 'Pft.' It's an awesome book but 'pft' to comics. I can see so much more that can be done.
Pictures and words. It seems to me far far and away more versatile than the standard novel, able to operate on different levels. And to invent design forms of information within a page. But I
haven't seen it happen really.
great artist see something that they want to see happen and they realize nobody's doing it. And so they have to do it.
its exciting! This great hybrid movie literature art medium that's so neglected, untapped. Its wrapped in juvenelia but it seems to me that eventually it'll have to be embraced. The design of the comic book is better than the book. If books are still a thing that's alive, it will evolve to something resembling or taking from the comic form eventually.
lets do the shit we think comics are capable of." Action is the foundational key to all success."
Somebody somewhere (here?) said artists can't criticize work because they are just looking for what they can use from it. I think in comics that is exactly the way to go about it. 'this is what can be taken and worked on'. We're building something. Its silly to try and say whether a work is great or not because comics as art is a new tradition. its healthy to think that within it there are not yet great works. just hints
Dane - that is exactly how I feel. I love comics, but I often hate comics, too.
and, yeah, the social aspect is difficult. I really enjoy having people to talk about this kind of stuff with (and there are tons of those people in Portland!), but it sometimes reminds me of when I worked at a comic store in high school - you get all caught up in what's going on around you (like, for instance, in my case, getting excited about the issue of Sandman drawn by P. Craig Russel!) and can't (as GH put it) see the forest for the trees.
Jesse - the relativity thing is one of the reasons I feel uncomfortable about this. I don't know what other people truly, unqualifiedly like. I was just struck when Suat wrote on HU that Crumb can't measure up to Blake. I really like Crumb, but I totally get what Suat's saying, and it reminds me that (IMO) comics is still mostly kids' stuff. Kids' stuff is ok sometimes, but "real art" is much more nourishing to me when I come across it.
When I first read the ComicsComics blog (actually I think it was the first issue of the mag, which I do really like), I was thrilled at the latent possibilities of neglected trash, but now CC has become just another comics blog where the history of comics is revered and new, fun stuff comes out every week. I'm just saying that I like disposable, fun stuff, but I love sublime stuff. And my tastes change often, too, but rarely does the really good stuff seem lame to me over time (fashionable stuff like Yokoyama does, for sure).
Zik - you're right, but it bums me out.
Stephen - well put - we'll get there!
Anonymous - that's the most beautiful thing I've heard in a long time. Back to work, work, work!
Quick correction: My post was not "anti-comics criticism." In fact, in it, I praised Ng Suat Tong's pan of Genesis.
As with comics, I just think that some criticism is more rewarding to read and consider than other criticism is.
All the same, nice post—and you should take the next step and actually critique Hernandez instead of just talking about it. I just didn't want to be misrepresented. Thanks.
Agree with a lot of this Jason. I've gone through stages where I read tons of comics, then I read tons of word books (mostly novels). Lately I've been pulling stuff off the shelves, and finding unfavorable comparisons. When I think of Borges, Cortazar, Markson, Gaddis, Robbe-Grillet, etc. where are the comics that are that exciting to me both aesthetically AND intellectually.
So much about comics, particularly the excavation of the "forgotten classics" is about the art, but mostly ignores the crappy stories. And even then, most of the art exists on a very narrow spectrum, stylistically.
Also: "rarely is there subtlety or complexity"
I was thinking about subtlety the other day. There is often a lack of such in comics and I wonder if it relates to an over reliance on representational imagery... or maybe that's just an excuse.
But... I hope this thinking doesn't stop you from making comics, because you're work is awesome and a cut above so much of the conventional work.
Tim - Yea, I put it in quotes because there was so much disagreement - took out that phrase - it didn't need to be there, anyway. And, yep, there is better and worse criticism, for sure. This one's pretty slight - just quick thoughts. RE Gilbert: hard to know where to begin - so much good stuff (julio's day, mark-making, fucked up morality, organic cosmology, play) and so much lowbrow (boobs, lurid plots, cheap shots)!
I echo the sentiment about feeling kinda bummed about the direction that ComicsComics has taken. I think it all started when they brought Jeet on board. Jeet's an important figure, but he's certainly an establishment figure. CC just seems like another establishment blog now, I find myself reading it less and less apart for the occasional Frank rant. Then you have Dan's puzzling comments about "not recognizing the artists and traditions mentioned on CometsComets" (paraphrased) although he seems to publish about 90% of them. It seems like they decided to take over being what tcj.com should be since everyone agrees that what tcj.com is sucks hard.
It's a quality blog no doubt, but it just doesn't excite me anymore. Needless to say this blog is the greatest (in both the most sincere and sarcastic sense of the word.)
Oh yeah, as as far as the topic goes. I just want to live to see the day when people admit that Krazy Kat blows (as a reading experience.)
I, like everyone else commenting here can surely relate to your feelings Jason. Here's the hopeful thought that I came up with after reading this:
Up until now there has been little serious critical attention to comics so at this moment, when we put the critical eye to what's being made or the overall crop of things being made (ie. walking around Stumptown) we find the field sorely wanting. I feel it changing though, we're all here talking about how we want the change. And I think the best comic artists working today have this at the front of their mind.
Also @the sinking, sick feeling one has while walking around conventions sometimes: Think if there were a convention for any other art medium where whoever got their 300 bucks in on time had a table. Imagine what a convention supposed to represent contemporary painting would look like.
While I love the democratic atmosphere of those conventions (and was obviously blown away by the fact that when I was first starting to make comics I could just go and hand them to the biggest publishers and creators), it can be a huge aesthetic bummer looking at what's spread on the tables not to mention the pleading, desperate eyes behind them. I find hope in the idea of a curated convention like the Brooklyn Comics and Graphics Festival (though I was unable to go this past year).
Every aspect of comics culture (such as the exhibitors of said conventions) needs and deserves a critical look which right now seems a daunting task. The good news is we all (obviously) see this potential. It's there! Let's do it!
And by "really take him seriously" I mean to not just praise him, to give him some shit for the endless large-breasted protagonists and gratuitous "sexy" shit. But more, it would just be nice if our culture could support giving him some time to piece together something lasting instead of forcing him to churn out half-assed periodicals to support himself.
Derik -
Exactly. It's the intellectual edge of the spectrum that's sorely lacking. And there's a pretty big bias toward being reactionarily anti-intellectual, even, & by super-smart folks usually. It's a bit of laziness and a bit of disgust at pretensiousness, I think, a way to be in control of one's tastes. Maybe it also relates to comix as, like rock n roll, this anti-establishment thing, a way to get to the id and call bullshit on "the emporer's new clothes."
I think representational imagery is a big hurdle to get over. It can be helpful (and beautiful or, at least, neat-o) but is not necessary for comics. There's a lot of places left to explore.
And, aw shucks, thanks - I'm working on a bigger book, and it's going well, but slowly.
Thanks, Jason. In regards to taking G. Hernandez seriously, I say you should start anywhere. One of the nice things about blogs is that it is easy to tackle subjects from one angle, and return to them another time from another. You don't have to get the whole thing wrapped up in a single post.
@Derik—I think you have a point regarding comics not often being equally interesting both aesthetically and intellectually. I do think a handful of (American) cartoonists offer what you're looking for (Or potentially could, though I know you don't like all of them): Herriman, Panter, Spiegelman, Clowes, Newgarden, Karasik/Mazzuchelli, and yes, Crumb, and yes, at times, Hernandez, among others I'm forgetting. I'm sure you could dispute any and all of these. Either way, it's not a long list.
(Also, I think there is a difference between being anti-pretension and being anti-intellectual. Gaddis makes fun of the pretentious like no one else. I don't believe Clowes is anti-intellectual in the slightest, and think that Crumb is only part of the time, in the same way that Twain is—and I similarly wouldn't give his work up for anything, despite its flaws. What art doesn't have flaws?)
Oh, and don't forget that Borges's favorite writers were mostly people like R.L. Stevenson, H.G. Wells, and G.K. Chesterton. There's more than one valid tradition.
But still, like I said, you have a point.
Oh, and Derek, before you say it, I'll admit that none of the examples I just gave reach the intellectual heights that Gaddis did. But, you know, that's a pretty high target!
I think we're reaching a point where we sort of have to acknowledge that there is no real demand for comics in the way that there is a demand for other forms of media.I'm not talking about commerce here, but more about the form. It's not as though comics were ever suddenly made possible by technology that allowed humans to communicate in amazing new ways; comics are a bastard, and didn't show up till its parents were very old. To cut to the chase, comics are obsolete, in many ways, and I think the kind of nostalgia Jason describes is the engine of the whole thing.
Let's stop pretending otherwise.
You can either fight it, and advocate for comics as "real art", or you can give in and ride the nostalgia train (rolling backwards, it feels like); Those impulses don't really rest easily together.
It's difficult to use comics toward "real art" in ways that don't seem joyless and po-faced, and it's difficult to create/read work that embraces the roots of your enjoyment of comics without feeling like you're burrowing into your own navel.
Or, a third option is to try to disengage and try for some kind of critical approach that views comics as a vector for culture. Call it the Berlatsky approach.
First, though, you have to make sure you don't have any kind of genuine aesthetic appreciation for comics in general, so that that the cultural criticism "talking points" that you derive become stand-ins for genuine aesthetic delight, thereby stripping all authority from the author and placing it in your own back pocket.
Or you can commit suicide. That's number four, but you won't get there until #3 no longer works.
It seems like very few have managed to merge the two competing impulses well. Chris Ware is the most successful among them, and it's not by chance that his work tries to deal with painful nostalgia.
Dash Shaw, who's approach I don't wholly love, seems to be avoiding these issues, which is interesting. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not.It denies the American Comics Ghetto, but I kind of wonder if that's exactly what we shouldn't do, as it's— if you buy my premise that nostalgia is the engine— casting aside the only ting that makes american comics relevant. In that case, why not animation? Why not live-action? Why not a novel?
All of these things are better ways to tell stories, when it comes down to it. If you don't have that irrational attachment to comics, and if your comics don't deal with that in some way, why do comics?
If your not going to deal with American Comics as a distinct aesthetic with a history, why be a comics critic?
I've been reading Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun series, and half way through the first book, it was clear to me that I was reading the best comic book ever; so good it couldn't be a comic book. There is no real need to read comics, unless you have that irrational desire to experience comic-ness.
I think we're reaching a point where we sort of have to acknowledge that there is no real demand for comics in the way that there is a demand for other forms of media.I'm not talking about commerce here, but more about the form. It's not as though comics were ever suddenly made possible by technology that allowed humans to communicate in amazing new ways; comics are a bastard, and didn't show up till its parents were very old. To cut to the chase, comics are obsolete, in many ways, and I think the kind of nostalgia Jason describes is the engine of the whole thing.
Let's stop pretending otherwise.
You can either fight it, and advocate for comics as "real art", or you can give in and ride the nostalgia train (rolling backwards, it feels like); Those impulses don't really rest easily together.
It's difficult to use comics toward "real art" in ways that don't seem joyless and po-faced, and it's difficult to create/read work that embraces the roots of your enjoyment of comics without feeling like you're burrowing into your own navel.
Or, a third option is to try to disengage and try for some kind of critical approach that views comics as a vector for culture. Call it the Berlatsky approach.
First, though, you have to make sure you don't have any kind of genuine aesthetic appreciation for comics in general, so that that the cultural criticism "talking points" that you derive become stand-ins for genuine aesthetic delight, thereby stripping all authority from the author and placing it in your own back pocket.
Or you can commit suicide. That's number four, but you won't get there until #3 no longer works.
It seems like very few have managed to merge the two competing impulses well. Chris Ware is the most successful among them, and it's not by chance that his work tries to deal with painful nostalgia.
Dash Shaw, who's approach I don't wholly love, seems to be avoiding these issues, which is interesting. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not.It denies the American Comics Ghetto, but I kind of wonder if that's exactly what we shouldn't do, as it's— if you buy my premise that nostalgia is the engine— casting aside the only ting that makes american comics relevant. In that case, why not animation? Why not live-action? Why not a novel?
All of these things are better ways to tell stories, when it comes down to it. If you don't have that irrational attachment to comics, and if your comics don't deal with that in some way, why do comics?
If your not going to deal with American Comics as a distinct aesthetic with a history, why be a comics critic?
I've been reading Gene Wolfe's Book of the New Sun series, and half way through the first book, it was clear to me that I was reading the best comic book ever; so good it couldn't be a comic book. There is no real need to read comics, unless you have that irrational desire to experience comic-ness.
I think we're reaching a point where we sort of have to acknowledge that there is no real demand for comics in the way that there is a demand for other forms of media.I'm not talking about commerce here, but more about the form. It's not as though comics were ever suddenly made possible by technology that allowed humans to communicate in amazing new ways; comics are a bastard, and didn't show up till its parents were very old. To cut to the chase, comics are obsolete, in many ways, and I think the kind of nostalgia Jason describes is the engine of the whole thing.
Let's stop pretending otherwise.
You can either fight it, and advocate for comics as "real art", or you can give in and ride the nostalgia train (rolling backwards, it feels like); Those impulses don't really rest easily together.
It's difficult to use comics toward "real art" in ways that don't seem joyless and po-faced, and it's difficult to create/read work that embraces the roots of your enjoyment of comics without feeling like you're burrowing into your own navel.
Sorry. Blogger was telling me my comment was too large, but it posted anyhow.
I think the "empty, nauseous feeling" that Dane describes is a subconscious acknowledgment that our attachment to "comics" is irrational because it can't possibly provide us with the desires that we project upon it.
This is the comic guy as loser syndrome that has nothing to do with men in tights. I think it's why guys like Gil Kane had to deal with comics as a craft, and nothing more, or it'll drive you mental. It's why the WEIRDO, as a type, is so prevalent in comics, I think.
Uland, you make good points but I don't think I can go as far as you. I still marvel at the way comics work. There is a magic to them that you don't get in other mediums. I think it comes from the strange mixture of active and passive involvement in reading comics. Comics demand something from the reader but they give a lot too. It's the medium that reminds me the most of pure imagination or the act of daydreaming. I think this is why I really like comics that are aesthetically linked with doodling, there is a corresponding vector there.
— On a personal level, this is why I can't do comics and can only deal with drawing . I can't bring all this stuff to the drawing board, so I go for a blank slate approach, where drawing is about the ink and the paper and the kinds of marks and lines I can make well.
Who doesn't like anna karenina? but who wants to live in a world that doesn't have Leo T. AND Graham Ingels (to choose a pretty medicoroe example that I still love).
More improtantly: what we're ignoring is that there are artists like Anke Feuchtenberger (who no one writes about, except for someone like Caroline Small who everyone decides to hate instead of admiring that she even tackled someone as complex as Anke...congrats to her for giving it a go, really) and John Hankiewicz who are 'as good' and rich in artistry as anything else. And there's going to be more and more of artists like them soon...
Anke F has a great line in her Comic Art interview...about how she loves Bernard Baily's art in the early Spectre comics. You can easily say Baily is pure ahck work, but there's something very important in his art too.
I go through periods where I 'hate' comics too and at thsoe times I remind myself how much richer the world of literature is (finish all the samuel beckett prose before reading mroe about shadow-cat). But I always feel like I'm kidding myself...that the improtant thing to do is to let yourself be open to all art...and comcis have a lot of art I'm very happy to be open to.
comics has capacities different from other mediums and i see no shortage of works realizing those capacities, so i think that you all either just aren't really paying attention to what's out there, or, you just aren't really interested in what comics has to offer, which seems to be the more likely case to judge by the tone of most of the posts here. it makes me wonder why you all are doing this blog. i try to use my blog to draw attention to work in comics which i think is worthwhile. i am not taking a position that is in any way against analysis, but if you are unable to provide any examples of work that you think is worthwhile in the medium you are discussing, then you are not doing a credible job as analysts. maybe you should find something else to do with your time.
C. Bren: I don't think we need more cheerleading, you know? I think it's also safe to take for granted that everyone here has a love for the medium, so much so that we think it can survive a lot of challenges.
Austin: Anke F. and John H. are really good, but I don't really see them as being capable of reaching the great heights that the best literature can reach. They're both dealing in pretty specific idioms, I think, to the point where they couldn't draw a comic about anything in the way that a Tolstoy could write about anything.
The stylistic languages that they use in drawing are just too strong.
Uland, I think this might just be a weak moment in art generally, across the board. I mean, why look for the next Tolstoy in comics. Has literature been able to produce a "next Tolstoy" lately? By comparison I think comics has just gone through a really exciting decade. Everyone is just getting a little anxious now with what's next. The Kramers/Fort Thunder thing set the bar high for "exciting new ideas in comics".
And as far as the works of our alledged "masters" go, ANL #19? Wilson? These book were incredible.
Ian- I sort of agree, but I think the general thrust of the dialog has to do with an uneasiness about continuing to say, "It's really great...for comics."
I don't expect a Tolstoy . That was a bad example. I should've used a contemporary writer. My point was that with the two examples Austin cited, the style is so thick that it dominates how the text is read, so, if you're willing to parse comics into text/image, the image is pulling so much weight that texts that grate against the idioms of the drawing will be subsumed. To put it roughly, John H. would have a hard time pulling off something like a sudden cut to Arizona in 1890. Am I making sense?
I like both of those cartoonists, but— and I think this is what Austin really wants to see more of— they both use a pretty hermetic, idiosyncratic language. It's great for communicating certain things, but I think it's really difficult to use it to communicate particularities of place, time and character.
I think the mainstream comics tradition ( I include stuff that's more derived from old strips, like Ware and later Clowes) , and the Manga tradition especially, is better suited for using comics as literature than whatever Art Comics kind of thing is going on.
As far as that stuff goes, I can't see it going too far. I'd rather look at great drawing and then read a word book.
If I'm reading comics— even genre stuff— I want to be immersed in a world that doesn't depend on me suspending my sense of reality. That means characters interacting in ways that make sense, having to deal with a world that has a set of rules that can be understood.
I think the enthusiasm for what we're calling Art Comics is hard to maintain after a while; the messy, scatological quality of a lot of it the much of it seems to be motivated by an over-appreciation for irony, as though it can and will do away with life's difficulties. It's basically a defense mechanism for young adults, I think. It's why you have much more fun in your early twenties than any other time; you use irony to deflect whatever interferes with your good time.
To make matters worse, it's usually not horrible irony, the kind that reveals shitty but funny truths, it's a safe, whimsical irony. It's like sex without the death-urge. That horrible irony ( think Solondz) is really what I latched on to in alt. comics in the 90's.
I might just be stuck there, railing at the kids for having their cake and eating it.
But it does kind of feel like a lot of posturing, doesn't it?
I find that kind of ugly but humane humor more in guys like Louis C.K, for example. It's just not going on in comics, it seems.
Btw, Caroline, nice blog.
Dang - not much time cuz I'm on my lunch break, but here's a quickie:
C.Bren - I don't care about the future of the comics medium. That's like caring about the future of Betamax. You get attached to things (as Uland says) irrationally and this sticks as part of your personality ("I am a comics person"), but it's just arbitrary. We may as well be claymation freaks! But I did grow up in this culture and have grown attached to it and occasionally see great stuff like some of Clowes' short works and get so excited!
U-I'm with you, but I still play the part of the ostrich, mostly.
Austin - stay in Portland! Don't move to Sweden!
More later...
@Ian Harker: "Krazy Kat blows (as a reading experience"
-I'm no KK authority but have you at least read the Tiger Tea story? That's a pretty satisfying reading experience.
Why do emotions like joy and sentiment always get relegated to second-class experiences? People say stuff to the gist of "comics fill me with a love that I've only knew in childhood" yet in the same breath dismiss them for not being truly moving? I don't get it. Don't be so ashamed of what turns you on.
@Trevor, although my brief excursions into Coconino County have so far left me pretty empty, I still feel no less obliged to continue trying (probably for the rest of my life.) I'll make sure to seek that story out next time around.
jason: the future isn't as ripe as the present . . . honestly, the writing on this blog rarely engages substantially with work that exists, here, in the present: the closest you usually get is to namedrop a few prominent artists as examples of current "trends". if you don't care at all about the future of comics, then why does this blog . . . this post, in particular . . . spend so much time speculating on it?
@Ian - well it's in Raw vol.2 no.3 if you ever happen to pick that up, i just picked it as a rollicking comicsy kind of read within KK.
@Uland: -I get what you're saying about the clotted idiosyncracy of modern comics.
-I kind of what to know from people what contemporary, non-Tolstoy writer they'd pick to best fit the role of comics' bête noire.
Because it's instructive to know the territory being disputed. When comics are compared unfavorably to literature I assume, "Ok, well then this guy must be really into todays literature, like he must think it's doing real good for itself right now."...But I don't always know if the critic is really there. Are they finishing a good read of Haruki Murakami or Jonathan Safran Foer and then punching a hole in the drywall and pissing all over their Kramers? God bless em if they are, whatever, but I want to believe that's why the argument is being made and not just because it sounds true.
"Ian Harker: "Krazy Kat blows (as a reading experience"
you've said a lot of crazy stuff ian but this takes the cake.
Ian- It isn't so much that I'd deny a pleasurable experience, it's that certain comics, at certain times in my youth, have been so pleasurable that I keep trying to re-experience that feeling, but it's impossible because I'm an adult and have to deal with the reality of that. The alternative is to burrow into nostalgia, something I don't want to do, whole-cloth, because I think it's unhealthy, to the point of being disordered.
Krazy Kat is one comic that doesn't require some kind of false vantage point, for me, because it's themes are so pure, and it's execution is so masterful. It resonates in a pretty magical way with what it's like to be a human.
I've been walking around saying "that's a fact, jack" really loud and scaring people in the supermarket.
Well, I'm just doing animation now, so fuck it... and then all the storyboards become the comics.
No, comics are pretty good.
As someone who largely uses prose and fiction writing as an artistic outlet, maybe I process novels the same way the more active cartoonists deal with comics.
Literature can deal in philosophy a lot better than comics can. But there are ideas in drawing. When I look at a Taiyo Matsumoto drawing, I want to capture that linework in a sentence, I want that same shambliness. Or when I listen to music I want to write like three-part harmonies. I can't play music worth a damn.
It's a visceral medium. That doesn't mean it's anti-intellectual- It deals in the immediate, which is the realm of the epiphany, the pure feeling, the revelation which is what most short stories have as their ending. Jimbo's Adventures In Paradise is obviously the book where there are the most of these moments in a short span and a cumulative force to them, but Kevin Huizenga's been blowing me away for some time. Both of those dudes are clearly super-smart, super-well-read dudes. There's ideas in Mat Brinkman's Multi-Force that are pretty impressive as well, despite not being a comic that wears its bookishness on its sleeve.
And these are SO SHORT, in terms of the time it takes to read them- Maybe commensurate with a Borges short story. A super-long comic maybe takes as long to read as it takes to watch a movie, and there's actually a lot of cartoonists I can hold to the standards of cinema. I hold both Ingmar Bergman and Chris Ware in pretty high regard, for instance. I've worked with making videos as well.
Donald Barthelme rules, in short story form at least, but in a way that's not that far from Mark Newgarden in some ways.
I guess those folks aren't making zines, and can't be found at Stumptown. But if you look outside the ghetto of those around you, and the fashions of the moment, and consider the real giants, there really is great work- You know, when you read great books, you aren't looking at the new releases, you're dealing with the annals of literature.
I would argue that in this current moment, comics are the most exciting medium, and I don't mean that as Team Comics boosterism, or some "you can do anything with words and pictures" slogan- There's a great many traditions to contend with and move forward, and its at a moment where, economically, it seems like a growth industry, while everything else is in a state of collapse.
@Tee See said:
"While I love the democratic atmosphere of those conventions (and was obviously blown away by the fact that when I was first starting to make comics I could just go and hand them to the biggest publishers and creators), it can be a huge aesthetic bummer looking at what's spread on the tables not to mention the pleading, desperate eyes behind them."
Right on. This is the conundrum. I love that comics and cartoonists are so approachable. I've seen/talked with Julie Doucet, Dan Clowes, Art Spiegelman, Chris Ware, Robert Crumb - some of the greats - in person. Can you imagine being just a regular schmo and having access to some of the major writers or artists or directors that easily? And, though I have found the occasional great cartoonist from going to cons (Sammy Harkham, Jason Miles), mostly the best books at these things are ones you could buy on Amazon.
@Ian Harker said:
"Why do emotions like joy and sentiment always get relegated to second-class experiences?"
Anna Karenina, for instance, has some of the most moving, beautiful, emotionally salient passages. Joy is so important, but the shallow "joy" in most comics (most culture, too.) is worth very little in the long run.
@C.Bren said:
"the writing on this blog rarely engages substantially with work that exists…"
My posts aren't about specific works, they're not close readings. I doubt I'd be good at that kind of thing. I've a very poor attention to detail. My posts're engaging with broader subjects related to culture in general and are less criticism than my transitory feelings about stuff. And I was being somewhat disingenuous: I do care about comics, but I'd rather engage with good culture than meet my quota for reading comics.
@Alixopulos said:
"Are they finishing a good read of Haruki Murakami or Jonathan Safran Foer and then punching a hole in the drywall and pissing all over their Kramers?"
Nope - have not found anything of great value in those writers. Franzen or Lethem, neither. There is good stuff in Kramers, though, for sure (particularly KE5). I know more about contemporary comics than contemporary lit or art, but I've seen or read more art or lit in general that has really impressed me deeply than comics
@Brian Nicholson said:"But there are ideas in drawing"
This is true. You have an entirely different way of showing information using images, but, while often lyrical or cool, in comics the drawings rarely show anything very subtle or complex. Though they could!
"…Kevin Huizenga's been blowing me away for some time."
He's definitely on my short list.
"I would argue that in this current moment, comics are the most exciting medium"
This is probably true. But I worry about what Uland is saying, that comics will become obsolete. I think Frankius is, maybe, where it's at - some form of animation will supplant comics.
The author’s intentions are only one strong voice in the conversation that surrounds art. Authorial intention is problematic...
I think they were obsolete soon after they were born. There has never been a huge "comics explosion" like there was an explosion of interest in movies and records, both of which were sustained.
You could count the introduction of color strips, maybe, but obviously that form had more to do with selling papers than selling itself.
There was Peanuts in the 60s/70s, but people liked Peanuts, not comics per se.
I'm not suggesting that all of this effects the quality of comics in individual cases— there are really great comics out there— but in general terms, comics have never pulled much cultural weight. It's not a rational choice to get so involved with something that enjoys so little social currency. Comics aren't dead, or dying, but they're marginal and always will be.
So, to bring it back to the original point, I don't think we'll ever really stop saying "It's great...for comics." That doesn't mean there aren't great comics, but that the form is so marginal it has special needs. You can't just toss comics around in conversation about art and writing and music.
Also, please note that I'm not using "irrational" as a slur.
"The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it immensely. All art is useless."
-Oscar Wilde
Uland's right, comics have never had a very powerful effect on society as a whole, but I think they possess the capacity to have a powerful effect on individuals. In the end that's all we can be, so it's not worth worrying about how they effect the rest of the world if they are effecting you powerfully anyway. If anything diminishes them it's that they don't get that extra nudge of social currency to make us convince ourselves that they are yet even more powerful. But then again, that whole process is pretty suspect in it's own right.
Most great art is marginal in it's own day, comics just lacks the institutional barrel-aging that eventually comes to most great art. Oh well, like I said it doesn't have to make it any less great in your own eyes.
Sometimes I see Jason's strips and I think to myself, with all of the thousands of people who are making comics, and the millions more who are reading them worldwide, there really isn't anyone who is doing this. On top of that I like what I'm seeing, so it's a pretty powerful experience considering. I think that's what I like about avant-garde comics, how unique they really are. It doesn't matter much to me that, as Uland would say, "only 30 or so guys really care about this stuff."
I think only 30 people are interested in it for a reason, and it's not because they're blind to the power of comics, it's that they don't have the irrational fixation on comics that has made people like us invest so much in comics.
That can make for a really passionate approach, which I think you need if you want to finish a comic, but it also can carry with it certain delusions, whereby we project a lot onto comics as a whole, and in specific comics, features that just aren't there.
I think it behooves creators to ask themselves in a sober way why they're using comics, what comics can do that other mediums cannot, and exploit those features.
Increasingly, if they aren't doing that, I'm not really interested in reading them. I'm not willing to give them the benefit of the doubt by projecting my desire for good comics onto whatever I'm reading.
I think that's where comics boosterism comes from; it's like the spirit of comics takes you over a bit, but if you stand back from it, you realize it's a weird kind of nostalgia-mongering, where you're pushing your own buttons in order to meet the promise you've been repeating subconsciously since you were ten years old. .
Maybe that's true with all mediums, to a certain extent. The idea of the silver screen lighting up a darkened theater is pretty romantic, so is the idea of the painter trying to capture beauty. Those things aren't so hermetic though.
It's almost like, in comics, you have to use that hermetic language of nostalgia in order to battle against it and bring it out into the daylight, so there's an irony there that can invoke that nausea we were speaking of. I think Chris Ware lives in that world. It's not some kind of put on.
But yeah, if you're only interested in invoking that spirit of comics, and having as much fun as possible with it— if you're not concerned with being taken seriously by others— then don't bother with all that. However, you might reach a point where, no matter how hard you try, you can no longer take yourself seriously. It's really difficult to stay committed to that, and you might find yourself wandering through a local convention when your fifty wondering what the fuck it is you're looking for here anyway.
"The author’s intentions are only one strong voice in the conversation that surrounds art. Authorial intention is problematic..."
This doesn't affect whether I perceive something to be good or bad, but I will say that I do feel like a creep when I'm into the outcome of the artistic process but think that the artist is an unself-aware kook or weirdo. I like engaging more with the thinking that goes behind making the work, even though I know (and hope!) that I will get something from the work that was unintended. Making my own work is actually a process of growing accidents and connections I never would've made linearly.
@Ian, @Uland - I'm with you. Art is kinda useless but it can still be beautifully affecting in a way that improves my life. I am happy to be among the thirty, I guess. I love making comics.
That Wilde quote was about how Art is the most important thing, precisely because it has no "use".
jason: so you're posting your "transitory feelings about stuff" . . . that's really convenient, because that means you don't have to stand behind anything you write. you'll make whatever statement is convenient for you at the time, and if it suits you later on you'll say you were being "disingenuous" and change your position. you're also unwilling to engage with anything except on a very vague and general level (your "feelings about stuff" and "culture in general"), which again allows you to say whatever you want without backing it up substantially, since there is essentially nothing of substance being said. and "poor attention to detail" is just a codeword for laziness. basically, you just told me that you don't have anything of value to say, and you're unwilling to substantiate what little you do say. so why should anyone listen to you?
Uland wrote: "I think it behooves creators to ask themselves in a sober way why they're using comics, what comics can do that other mediums cannot, and exploit those features."
I think you are presenting too clean of a divide between form and content. In some sense content always comments on it's own form. I think this is even more pronounced with experimental work. French New Wave films are in large part ABOUT cinema. Bebop is in large part ABOUT jazz. When I make comics they are usually ABOUT comics. I'm inspired by the form itself and the possibilities that form presents me and tantalizes my creative instincts with. I don't ever have a creative urge and sit around wondering if it should be a song, a movie or a comic. It's always going to be a comic, for better or worse.
Man, I just cannot relate to any human that doesn't get Krazy Kat. I don't give a green shit about any "Komix Kanon" but if there's a better strip than Herriman's, I've not read it. I can understand not liking Peanuts or whatever, but KK is pure fucking poetry, and it communicates as much or more about life than any work of art in any medium, in my opinion. I don't know what else you need in a "reading experience" frankly.
As for Gilbert Hernandez, he's a goddamned genius as far as I'm concerned. I long ago lost track of which character is which in his world (actually I can't follow any story with more than four or five characters) but I can pick up anything he's done (old or new) and just be awed by the life he imbues these silly lines on the page, how much history (and future) he suggests so casually, how he seems to have it all worked out in his head yet it seems so spontaneous... amazing. One of the ten greatest cartoonists of all time. I think his experimental stuff (surreal is probably a btter adjective) is undervalued, and his recent stuff in general is either under-or over-appreciated (Sloth and Speak of the Devil - not so good, Chance in Hell and Luba - Masterpieces).
Also, what is the deal with Scott Pilgrim all up my ass lately? I can't think of a dumber comic, a more potent example of willful infantilism. It's fucking stupid, get out of here.
I must just have a low tolerance for Pidgin English.
can someone post links to the caroline small thing
"[john hankiewicz and anke feuchtenberger] both use a pretty hermetic, idiosyncratic language."
My feeling is that there language is closer to reality...in the way that Bresson's actors deliver 'stilted' performances. Stilted compared to John Houston movies, sure...but that stilted-ness is closer to what reality actually is. It's just 'idiosyncratic' in the world of art that is forever married to the idea that Tolstoy is the peak of expression.
Caroline Small on Anke Feuchtenberger
I don't think exploiting what comics as a form has to offer limits content, it just demands that you execute it in a way that makes sense.
Or maybe were talking past each other, I don't know. I couldn't really make much sense of what you wrote, to be honest.
You can get as experimental as you want, but it really doesn't matter if it's not communicating something that you can take away from it, as obscure as it might be.
Jeffrey- Scott Pilgrim is utter garbage. I just don't get 20-somethings who want to celebrate themselves. Shouldn't they be wanting to take the piss out of each other? Or is Scott Pilgrim for high school students who want to fantasize about being cool 23 year olds?
Gilbert Hernandez is great, I concur.
I mean, there's lots of good stuff out there. My point is that they just happen to comics, not that comics are great because there are good ones.
@C. Bren sed:
"so why should anyone listen to you?"
I never really expected anyone to, but if a few people get some enjoyment from what I'm doing, then that's cool.
I might agree that I'm lazy or I could say that clarity and taking a stand/making a convincing argument aren't always helpful to me. Everything around me (and my internal state) are constantly in flux so why is it useful to stake a claim and maintain stasis? This is a real question.
If I'm not proving my "points" to your satisfaction then why don't you dismiss this blog (or my posts, at least) as not worth your time?
I can be disingenous sometimes, but I'm really saying that I don't know the answers to these questions, but they obsess me. Some of the comments answer some of my questions or are genuinely comforting to me! Co-Mix group therapy...
This is not an argument. Don't we all want loads of better comics?
@Uland - Re the quote:
Yeah, but I have all these conflicted feelings about utility. Wilde is right, though, I think right this minute.
Austin- I don't think the kinds of works you mention are "closer to reality". I think that kind of language is well suited for illustrating internal states; you could say that the ultra stylized drawing could better express how you might be feeling ( but that begs the question why these people keep drawing in the same style, as there's no way they're feeling the same all the time) but it lacks verisimilitude.
Style changes; ultra stylized work from the early nineties often looks really bad today, to the point where the eye just bounces right off of it. My point is that whatever kind of subjective state that style might tap into at the time it was created will not stay intact. That means is a pretty poor way to communicate, in my book.
It also seems sort of indulgent. It doesn't meet the reader halfway by offering depictions of a shared reality ( even if it's a work of fantasy, it's needed, imo.)
And I'm not talking about realism here. I think a cartoonist like Tsuge is a perfect example of using a distinct style that can depict anything and everything.
But obviously, Austin, we're looking for very different things in comics.
comics has reached this critical mass where the critics are more discussed than the comics themselves - precisely why i think it's important to write about structure and how they (we the makers) see others work - how it is constructed. Critics don't "see" like you do, dear maker - please share that with the world
jason: i don't think i would have started an argument with you if i felt you really were discussing how to create loads of better comics, but what you actually were saying was this vague doom-and-gloom stuff about the obsolescence of comics which i think is really silly and meaningless. anyways, if you don't care whether what you're saying is nonsense, go ahead and say nonsense... i won't intervene again. believe me, i wouldn't have in the first place except that you were saying that there there is a near-total lack of worthwhile comics in existence, which is a pretty denigrating claim to make, and one worth challenging. it's too bad that you are so unwilling to discuss it--- i'm not saying that you should stake out one position and not budge from it in order to engage in a dicussion, but it would be nice if you were willing to substantiate anything you say in any way--- but you're right: i guess i should just dismiss this blog as unworthy of my time.
i have to apologize for misremembering the content of your original post as far as "obsolescence" goes, so i guess i should again what my problem was with your original post: you were saying that comics as it currently exits somehow fails to "measure up" to other mediums, in some very broad sense that is left unsubstantiated. like i said, i think that comics has very different capacities from any other medium, and that if you're talking about comics, or any medium, it is necessary to adapt your viewpoint to reflect what is singular about the medium you are discussing. i just don't think that it makes since to discuss the relative "greatness" of entire mediums since that is such a generalized and vague level of discussion that is impossible to say anything very meaningful. there just doesn't exist any real critical perspective so elevated that you could substantiate this kind of broad statement. the main reason i felt it was necessary to dispute your original post is that it is self-important and insulting to talk about the failure of an entire medium and all the artists working within it! if you don't see any comics you like or think are worthy of being considered "great", you had better just get off your ass and look for them, because it's ridiculous to say that they don't exist.
i'm 12 and what is this
c. bren: are you familiar with this guy...he has similar concerns
http://www.youtube.com/watch#!v=hMOhA1wJqWY&feature=related
@Frank - you're right, man. I have another more legit post waiting in the wings about temporal vs spatial organization in comics, but I gotta do some more cogitating first.
@C.Bren - You're right. I wasn't giving a lot of specifics, just my general impresion of the state of things.
I think comics work differently from other media, yes, but I feel like that phrase is often used to excuse how little there is going on in most books beyond some stunning visuals and complicated cosmologies.
When I look through a book like Art in Time, I'm so blown away by the drawings of Jesse Marsh or Bill Everett. Or how John Stanley's work on "realistic" comics is so different from Lulu. But when I try to read the stories themselves, I can't. They're pretty dull. To me, that means they're not functioning well as comics.
Comics function best, in my opinion, when the words modify the images and vice versa in interesting ways and it all works in the service of a good story, a good construct, or a good idea.
I feel like I'm less visually oriented than a lot of comix folks. Maybe that leads to me needing "content" more than "form." And by content, I mean graspable ideas and not just an amazing sensory experience.
I really like comics a lot. I grew up reading them, worked at a comic book store as a teenager, woke up at 3:30 this morning so that I'd have a couple hours to draw before work. I have a lot of psychic energy invested in this. I'm frustrated that I rarely have a satisfying experience reading comics.
I don't think it does anybody or "the medium" any good to ignore the faults of comics historically. But bitching about it probably doesn't do much good either.
There are lots of exciting things afoot, but I can't wait to see what's to come.
I really like your blog, by the way. I totally get into the culture of comics a lot of the time. There's a lot of weird, interesting territory. I know virtually nothing about manga or many other countries' comics. I should engage with this other, more elusive part of my brain more - the experiential part that doesn't need linguistic "meaning" - and just groove.
@Austin: wow, cool. thanks for the gratuituous insult. you know, i'm not one of those people who is on some kind of specious mission to single-handedly "raise the standards" of online comics criticism, and i am not a regular commenter on this or any other blog, either, but in this case i saw someone saying something totally ridiculous, and i wanted to challenge it, y'know? it's nice to know that you think so highly of what you all are doing here that you can respond to criticism.
@jason: ok, cool. it sounds like we reached a positive conclusion. i have no interest in "cheerleading" for "team comics" (yes, uland, i have read the comics journal also), but i think there's a big problem with attacking comics as a medium in this broad and non-specific way, because all it does is to make the critic sound more important than he really is without saying much of anything. it's just silly to be so vague, and there is so much to be accomplished by talking about work that interests us in specific detail because there is a lot of great work out there that is just being ignored, and as creators i think we can all understand it is to have someone get what you are doing. that is pretty much all i am arguing for, and i'm not saying there is something wrong with giving bad reviews to something either... but vague and generalized negativity kind of unsettles me because it's really shitty and self-important without any chance of accomplishing anything. am i really some kind of ludicrous internet watchdog for saying this (thanks again, austin...)? it seems to me that i am just trying to make the point that there is a lot of really good work within comics that is worth talking about, because people are wasting time bitching and moaning and fighting with each other instead of talking about it!
oh yeah, and because my blog is mostly about non-american comics and many of them are not contemporary, which is probably not primarily the kind of comics you were probably thinking of when you wrote this post, here are some young american contemporary creators who i think really deserve closer attention: carlos gonzalez. this blog is actually one of the few places where his "slime freak" comics have been mentioned online, so you all already deserve credit there, but there is so much more there that deserves discussion. anya davidson. i just found out about this artist when i borrowed her "real people" comic. i was really amazed and confounded by it, but there isn't much about her online. jennny gonzalez. this is another artist i just found out about, and she's been doing a long serialized strip called "too negative." it's easy to be put off by her work because of its ridiculous "punk" content, but it's an extremely sustained project with a high level of craft that reminds me a lot of harvey comics, like hot stuff or wendy the good little witch. it's quite possible that you won't agree with me that this one is worthy of attention but i still think it's underappreciated. michael hurley: has anyone ever really written about his comics? they're not easy to get a hold of, but he is reaaally good at them. there are other creators like noel freibert, matthew thurber, uhh.... probably some more that i can't think of, that already get a lot of attention but have so much of substance going on that it deserves to be unpacked. i don't know, maybe this is all unnecessary, but i'm just saying that there is a lot out there that deserves better attention, and these are the artists that i would write about if i were going to start focussing on american comics on my blog...which could happen.
i have to say it one more time, and then i'm done: i don't think that anybody needs to be uncritically and unreservedly positive about comics all the time, but there is a certain paralyzing negativity on display on this blog which just seems to me like bad news, because there's nothing specific being discussed and thus little chance of it leading to anything new and constructive. i don't know if i've changed anyone's mind, but at least i've said my part.
"...all it does is to make the critic sound more important than he really is without saying much of anything."
Yeah, I agree. I am not better than comics, and I didn't want to seem elitist or superior - just express my disillusionment right this moment with something I love - but it's hard to have conversations in blog posts/comments. It's very easy to misrepresent yourself.
"... and as creators i think we can all understand it is to have someone get what you are doing."
Yes! It's great and very validating to have legitimate, positive feedback.
"...it seems to me that i am just trying to make the point that there is a lot of really good work within comics that is worth talking about, because people are wasting time bitching and moaning and fighting with each other instead of talking about it!"
Again, yes! I need to write about why I think "I Never Liked You" is so great or Austin's comics, for that matter. Or just in some way put into words which of the mechanics of comics seem fruitful or what I want to see done. I will try hard to do this. I have some ideas.
I'm aware of Noel Freibert and Matthew Thurber, and I do like their stuff very much (Thurber's Eno story, oh man!), but I'm not familiar with the other creators you mentioned. I'll check em out!
c bren: first, i think your blog is awesome and your comic on the gaze books website is so funny i replay it in my head all the time. plus i think we had some mutual firends in new york?
i find the amount of irritation in your posts inherently hilarious, since you're baffflement towards jason not finding any good comics is mirrored in you not finidng anything worthwhile in what he's saying.
I strongly disagree with jason in this instance but I'm willing to listen. Constantly saying 'this isn't worth my time!' and then logging back on to comment and type in the word verification, etc, is worthy of the harsh judgement that you so skillfully dole out.
But in the end I love reading what you're saying.
and really i'm always looking for an excuse to share that watchman video.
austin: .
@Jason O.
oh man, I'll get through this slog later, but for the moment I still feel compelled to respond.
For one, comics is a medium while betamax is a format, so its an apples to oranges comparison. Comics is a unique way of presenting information that I can't see just "going away" because of a shifting market, any more than written language would go away due to a lack of publishing.
I also want to take issue with (and I'm at fault of this sort of thinking myself) the idea that our response to comics/music/art first and foremost is whether it's good or not. Would we grade our everyday interpersonal interactions the same way? Or a vacation we took? Digesting a work is part of our experience so why wouldn't we appropriate it accordingly?
On re-thinking, I suppose good vs not good isn't a bad place to start, but unfortunately that's often also where the critical engagement ends.
@Tony (Pirate) - that was a bad metaphor, sure, and I do care about comics - I was just trying to say that I'm not going to read comics just to read them, that I want to feel satisfied. If I can find that more easiy in other media, that's where I'll spend my time. I definitely read more books than comics, but I think about the medium and formal concerns of comics more.
Also, there are warring parts of my psyche re the pronouncement of qualitative differences. In some ways, it just feels natural to take in a work as a whole, pre-digested thing and echelon it accordingly. But the better half of me sees this as similar to Donald Trump wanting all the fixtures in his house to be platinum because platinum is "the best." There's some experiential component of dealing with art that's not about how everything gels together to make a perfect whole - art is often about digesting the parts of a work yourself and how that process feels. Judgements of quality are irrelevant.
http://www.platinumstudios.com/
Post a Comment