Defining "comics"""

sandy carruthers · Post by **sandy carruthers** » Wed Dec 05, 2001 8:39 am

Correction:
Does comics have to have a decernable story?
As far as I'm concerned: ALL comics are INdecernable, anyway. Even the superhero ones. Think about the last time you tried to get a non-comic reader into comics. People have a difficult enough time bending their brains around flying super people in their underwear saving the day all the time.
Sorry.

Doc MacDougal · Post by **Doc MacDougal** » Wed Dec 05, 2001 11:00 am

I think that a comic has to narrate something, whether it be a story, an idea, an emotional state, whatever. And the images (whether they include text or not) are the primary narrative devices.

Does it have to be planned by the artist? My gut says yes. Even in the extreme of found art, the artist has to plan for that material or whatever to be called art and for it to be discussed within a particular context.

Doc.

Jason Tocci · Post by **Jason Tocci** » Wed Dec 05, 2001 2:09 pm

Regarding "do comics need to tell a story" --

Are those little cards with pictoral emergency instructions they give on planes comics? They don't tell a story, but they are certainly set up like comics. This sets up an important division: perhaps airplane emergency cartoons are to comic strips/books what (for example) a VCR instruction manual is to a prose fiction. If you define "comics" (loosely) as the storytelling form made up by a sequence of pictures, then it still belongs to some broader language of sequential pictures that include airplane emergency cards. If you define "comics" as any deliberate sequence of pictures, storytelling is no longer a required element, and airplane emergency cartoons count.

I probably didn't just say anything that hasn't been said before, but it seemed like a good place to say it.

And something new to consider:

It seems that if we're going to include panel cartoons in the definition of "comics" at all (and people don't seem too keen on that...), it'll just be as a sort of aside tacked on to the definition. Sort of, "These are called comics only because they have a common origin as the sequential art comics we know and love, but they're not really comics..." But if you go by the history that Roger Sabin suggests in Comics, Comix & Graphic Novels, the term "comics" was applied to humorous illustrated broadsheets in England in the 19th century, and only some of which existed in sequential art form (they were often referred to as "the comicals," sometimes shortented to "comics"). "Comics," then, definitely originally included panel cartoons, back when the root of the name actually meant something -- the works were essentially humorous. Did they cease to really be "comics" as soon as they stopped being humorous? Most people would argue not, since we've been calling them comics for years -- the meaning of the word changed somewhere. Does that mean it can now exclude the works that engendered the term in the first place?

What an annoying term.

Jason

glych · Post by **glych** » Wed Dec 05, 2001 7:35 pm

..."storytelling form made up by a sequence of pictures..."

'hhmm....*

..."comicals"...

*double hhmmm*

I think it's safe to assume that we are creating a new definition with very little relation to the old ones...

Just because a "comic" contains no humor doesn't limit it from being a comic.

But there was an earlier post from "g..z" (Pardon my shortening) that said "an oil painting is easily defined because it is a painting done in oils"...

Well, this is true of Acrylic paintings, Charcoal drawings, chalk drawings, wire sculptures,etc...

But what's a sculpture?

What's a painting?

the tools used for these things differ greatly from one form of the medium to the next... (do you really need paint for a painting?)

SO maybe comics are just another medium considering web-comics, strips, books, and graphic novels are all different forms of a medium...

It's not "this is and this is not a comic" that we're discussing here, it's what comics are...

I was dicussing this discussion with m'pop yesterday, who has been in the art world for close to 30 years now, and he was decribing to me a situation that happened his senior year of college. FOr the final grade his class had to show their best work of art to the class and explain what they put into it, how it was done, blah blah blah... Well, my dad labored over a painting for close to 8 months that still hangs in our front room. It's a expressionistic peice about the Vietnam war. Basically, an orange type glow coming from the "sky" portion of the painting that's raining down onto young Vietnamese children playing in a rice field. My dad was in 'Nam, so he needed to express those parts of his soul...

My dad's painting isn't the issue here. It's what some of the other "Paintings" were for the final project.

He described to me that one guy hung up some curtains in the classroom, shut off the lights, had all the students hold lit candles, and turned on a fan. They would walk through the curtains and their candle would go out as they walked past the fan. This was his painting.

My dad: "Well, that's pretty cool, but it's not a painting."

Guy: "Why not?"

Dad: "It doesn't have paint!"

Guy: "Does a painting need paint?"

Dad: "not neccisarily, but your "painting" can't be recreated, not exactly."

Guy: "Neither can a great performance of King Lear."

Dad: "Exactly! You didn't created a painting, you created a play. This is theatre, not art."

Guy: "Theatre is art."

Dad: "True, but it's not a painting."

The point of this story, let's not confuse a theatre peice for a painted work.

-glych

jturner · Post by **jturner** » Wed Dec 05, 2001 9:35 pm

On 2001-12-05 13:09, Jason Tocci wrote:
Regarding "do comics need to tell a story" --

If you define "comics" (loosely) as the storytelling form made up by a sequence of pictures, then it still belongs to some broader language of sequential pictures that include airplane emergency cards. If you define "comics" as any deliberate sequence of pictures, storytelling is no longer a required element, and airplane emergency cartoons count.

But if you restrict it to things telling a story, certain works like er Understanding Comics might come into question...

Jason Turner

Jason Tocci · Post by **Jason Tocci** » Wed Dec 05, 2001 11:16 pm

On 2001-12-05 20:35, jturner wrote:

But if you restrict it to things telling a story, certain works like er Understanding Comics might come into question...

Jason Turner

Yup.

So is Understanding Comics a comic, or is it a book about comics told in the format utilized by comics?

I think you could make an equally convincing case for both side of this.

Jason

[ This Message was edited by: Jason Tocci on 2001-12-05 22:17 ]

gazorenzoku · Post by **gazorenzoku** » Thu Dec 06, 2001 3:20 am

Sandy, thanks for your ideas and opinions.
I personally agree with your comic aesthetics for the most part. Having said that, I also feel that your way of defining comics (which is probably shared by pretty much everyone else out there) is not quite as liberating as I would have hoped for. I think the important thing to keep in mind is that personal taste should be kept seperate from defining factors. It is one step to say "ok, comics can be more than superhero stories" (which is a positive move, of course). But then to say, "but we should limit them to a story telling format" is to me, as equally stiffling as the definition "comics= X men".

It is all the more tragic because we are supposed to be enlightened artists creating a definition that would help to expand the possibilities of the art of comics. Sure, boundries are needed, and maybe my proposed boundries are a little bit too broad, but can't a little bit more freedom be allowed?

When I hear things like "a comic has to have a story", I smell death. The death of comics, or even worse, a prolonged life of solitude in small comic book shops visited only by comic junkies, parents looking for gifts, and an occasional enjoyer of the new brand of counter culture comics...

Once again, I want to say that I agree with you personally about a lot of what you said... but I just think that we need a definition that includes more room for possibility.

glych · Post by **glych** » Thu Dec 06, 2001 3:24 am

A compositioned and deliberate piece of art used to convey information

...

Am I close?

-glych

gazorenzoku · Post by **gazorenzoku** » Thu Dec 06, 2001 4:40 am

On 2001-12-06 02:24, glych wrote:
 A compositioned and deliberate piece of art used to convey information

what is art?

what is information?

I do notice that this definition is really broader than the previous ones. It allows for 3-d stuff as well.

gazorenzoku · Post by **gazorenzoku** » Thu Dec 06, 2001 4:44 am

On 2001-12-05 22:16, Jason Tocci wrote:
On 2001-12-05 20:35, jturner wrote:

But if you restrict it to things telling a story, certain works like er Understanding Comics might come into question...

Jason Turner
Yup.

So is Understanding Comics a comic, or is it a book about comics told in the format utilized by comics?

Does a book have to tell a story? Now we are in the realm of defining types of comics.

In the world of literature, you have

fiction
nonfiction
poetry
plays (we read them in highschool English class...)

I am no expert on literature, so my classification may be all wrong, but the basic point is that OF COURSE THERE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A STORY. What about a comic book as poetry? A comic book as nonfiction?

sandy carruthers · Post by **sandy carruthers** » Thu Dec 06, 2001 7:21 am

Gazo, you wrote:
But then to say, "but we should limit them to a story telling format" is to me, as equally stiffling as the definition "comics= X men".
Storytelling IS an artform. Connecting it to comics do not threaten the context of what comics are/ever will be. It is what makes this artform unique from other forms. This should not be stiffling to the creator, but rather liberating. Don't think, "comics= X men" - rather, think "comics=cinema"(I'm oversimplifying here, I know, but I hope you get the gist.)

sandy carruthers · Post by **sandy carruthers** » Thu Dec 06, 2001 7:29 am

Gazo, you're last link proves my point. (The Vince Coleman piece) Here is sequenctial art with no english to it, so it is open to interpretation. But it STILL conveyed a story. My take: mans ability to raise above primal ugliness and evolve to something higher(nirvana state=superhero state). I'm not concerned if that is right or wrong, but that is how I interpreted it. It's still a story, though.

sandy carruthers · Post by **sandy carruthers** » Thu Dec 06, 2001 9:05 am

Last comment. Promise. Is this a comic?

http://www.sandycarruthers.com/the%20en ... 20near.pdf

I don't consider this a comic.

Doc MacDougal · Post by **Doc MacDougal** » Thu Dec 06, 2001 9:13 am

Does comics have to tell a story? That depends on your definition of "story". If you mean fiction, I would say no. If you're talking about a progression of ideas--for example, documentary films that call themselves, "the story of whatever"--then, yes, I think that's probably a valid limitation. Understanding Comics, for example, isn't exactly a story if you're talking about fiction, but it does contain a clear progression of ideas, the story of comics, so to speak.

On the other hand, the metaphor of comics to cinema got me thinking about experimental film and video. I suppose there must be room for non-narrative, experimental works in any definition we might end up with.

Sandy: I would say that last example you posted isn't a comic because the images aren't doing the lion's share of the communicative work.

Doc.

gazorenzoku · Post by **gazorenzoku** » Thu Dec 06, 2001 11:55 am

On 2001-12-06 08:05, sandy carruthers wrote:
Last comment. Promise.

ahhhh... come on, don't let this be your last comment... it was just starting to get fun!

Seriously, though, I appreciate your comments, and also really appreciate that you took a look at my site, and look forward to getting back to you tomorrow. It is night time here in Sapporo, so I will be up and posting when you all are asleep...

gazorenzoku · Post by **gazorenzoku** » Thu Dec 06, 2001 11:58 am

about my earlier response to glych:

Sorry, I was just being a devil?fs advocate. I like the word ?gart?h since it is difficult to define and leaves a lot of space for what can be a comic.

Tonight I was working on an animation for this computer graphics class and I had the strong feeling that the animation was not a comic in any way. So, I take back my earlier statements about film and what not. The defining characteristic to me is the staticness of the images in space.

I still think sculpture (and pottery for that matter) could still be comics?c at least it shouldn?ft be made impossible from the outset. Basically, if one image is presented, and that image moves, then I suppose it isn?ft a comic (though in the world of web comics, a single image within a host of images can move)?c

So, how about this:
Comic = A series of static images (with or without words), appearing next to each other in space, that combine to convey.

What is conveyed is completely up to the creator. If the image is 2-d or 3-d is strictly up to the creator. If the whole thing was planed or not is strictly up to the creator. In fact, the only thing that is not up to the creator is that the images have to appear side by side. Which is what I feel is at the very heart of comics.

The embarrassing thing is that I can not find my copy of Scott?fs first book to check my feeble attempt against. I have the second one right in my line of sight, but I do not know where I placed the first one?c. If my description is too similar or in some other way flawed, I am sure I will hear about it?c?c

gazorenzoku · Post by **gazorenzoku** » Fri Dec 07, 2001 2:13 am

I just found my copy of "Understanding Comics" (it was in the bookshelf backwards, with the name facing the wall, so I overlooked it before... an omen?)

Anyhow, re-reading the definition that Scott came up with, I realized that it is perfect (for me, at least).

"Juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence, indtended to convey information and/or produce an aesthetic response in the viewer"

no mention of story
no mention of the difference between fiction and non fiction

but most importantly to me personally, this definition does not limit comics to the realm of storytelling: "and/or produce an aesthetic response in the viewer".

In my line of study (so-called "fine art"), this is a very important thing. A painting, in my way of looking at things, is successful if it produces an aesthetic response in the viewer. Though I have loved comics as a story telling medium since I was a child (and still do, and always will), I feel that comics have the potential to unlock the same sort of energies that a painting does. This is a difficult idea to express, but what I am trying to say is this: a painting can be a communication from the artist's subconscious to the viewer's subconscious, expressing things on a deep and human level that words and images normally do not express adequately. Just like myths and religion (see Joseph Campbel: "A Hero with a Thousand Faces").

So, the basic formula could go something like this: if a painting expresses one unconscious element, then a series of paintings (or images) could concievably express a series of unconsious elements. What is an unconscious element? The poetry of images... something that can not be put in words for fear of lossing it alltogether. Magic. (of course, one painting can express way more than one unconscious element)

So, what I see in comics is a potential for a way of communicating the dream world in a suquential format, similar to dreams. Of course some might argue that dreams are stories too, so a comic attempting to emulate (but not copy) dreams is also a story. That might be the case, but it is not the typical story in the sense of being oranized by literary conventions. It is a succession of ideas, of emotions, of unconscious elements.

Anyhow, about the Scott McCloud definition:

Maybe one slight alteration could be made to include 3-d stuff...

"juxtaposed images and/or objects..."

This would mean that any 3-d object would be capible of serving the same purpose as a 2-d image in communicating subconscious elements in a sequence. They could also tell a traditional story. I would personally like to catagorize comics in terms of things that it can do, rather than in what medium it should be confined to. Thus, I see things like 2-d format and the story telling tradition as limiting factors. Wonderful art forms in and of themselves, of which I am a big fan, but limiting all the same.

However, as a compromise, I suggest that the 3-d stuff is left out, and anything 3-d could be defined (by people who feel that it is necessary to define) as "comic inspired/influenced 3-d design". Those who feel that 3-d design can be comics can still disagree, and if they make good stuff maybe people will start to call it comics... maybe not...

The great artists probably won't care anyhow...

Anyhow, can someone remind me why we started to come up with a new definition? Rereading Scott's definition, I fail to see why another one is necessary...

My appologies to Scott for not rereading his definition at the begining of the discussion, though I did have a lot of fun writing my own opinions and reading about what other people think. I particularly enjoyed the story about the people walking with candles behind curtains.

I also think that trying to come up with my own definition in a public setting (well, on this forum at least) and then going back and reading Scott's definition was a great excersise in general. It really helped me understand his definition in a way I did not before, and it also helped me understand what I expect out of comics, and also it renewed my confidence in the wonder of the art called "comics". Call it what you will, define it how you want, it is just great to have around!

Now, if you forgive me for the length and frequency of my posts, I will make a seperate post in response to some of the theoritical issues regarding the form of comics. Though I feel that the whole debate was decided from the start by the superiority of Scott's definition, I feel that we have opened the doors to some issues about the core of comics that can and should still be discussed. It seems that these things might fall outside of the realm of a discussion on the definition of comics, but are still pertanent to the concept of "what is comics" in general...

But first, a shameless plug:
Check out my site!

thanks,

vince
gazorenzoku@hotmail.com

Jason Tocci · Post by **Jason Tocci** » Fri Dec 07, 2001 2:14 am

Sandy:

If that's not a comic, then you'll also have to discount certain works by Will Eisner, like certain stories or parts of stories in Minor Miracles. I think it is a comic. Or at least I think it's sequential art and image/text. Am I annoying anybody with those terms yet?

Gazorenzoku:

Does an animated gif (which is not a wholly static image) exclude something from being a comic? And also note that the images don't necessarily have to be "next to" each other. And this also ignores the works that people call comics that only have one panel. Is everyone going to tell me that these things that have been called comics for over a hundred years are not comics, even though they were called comics before (or starting at the same time that) comic strips were called comics?

I think we need to face the fact that "comics" is an inadequate term, as we're trying to use it to describe what's really more than one thing -- it can be a form of pictorial storytelling, it can be a form of pictorial communication (e.g. Understanding Comics), it can be certain examples of single-panel cartooning. Maybe it would be more profitable and precise to us to examine each of these arts separately, and see how we can define those.

But I guess the real goal here is to make even more things that would fit under the banner "comics," and in that sense the term's broadness is its strength...

I wonder if I had anything new to offer at all just now.

Jason

gazorenzoku · Post by **gazorenzoku** » Fri Dec 07, 2001 2:32 am

On 2001-12-06 06:29, sandy carruthers wrote:
Gazo, you're last link proves my point. (The Vince Coleman piece) Here is sequenctial art with no english to it, so it is open to interpretation. But it STILL conveyed a story. My take: mans ability to raise above primal ugliness and evolve to something higher(nirvana state=superhero state). I'm not concerned if that is right or wrong, but that is how I interpreted it. It's still a story, though.

1) Somehow my images got mixed up. The images presented on the top page of my website yesterday are supposed to be part of a comic that is in the Japanese language section of the site designed to be read by Japanese people. There is an English language translation as well. I think I solved the problem, so please have a look at the entire comic if you like. It can be found within the site. In any case, it was not intended to be read by a non-Japanese language reader and indeed the words do have meaning.

2) The comic on my site now was not intended to support my argument in any way. It does have a story. I have never written a comic without a story, and have no plans to do so currently, though it does seem like a worthy endevor and I may take the challenge some day.

3) I like your interpretation. It is close to my feelings about the story, but of course, as you said, that is not really important. Like a myth, I offer this story with no explination so that each individual may layer their own personal meaning over my expression. That was my goal from the outset, and I am really pleased that you took the time to render an opinion and even more pleased that you let me know what you thought! Thanks!!!

Anyhow, the story is ongoing, so check out the entire site if you like...

vince

gazorenzoku · Post by **gazorenzoku** » Fri Dec 07, 2001 2:45 am

On 2001-12-06 06:21, sandy carruthers wrote:
Gazo, you wrote:
But then to say, "but we should limit them to a story telling format" is to me, as equally stiffling as the definition "comics= X men".
Storytelling IS an artform. Connecting it to comics do not threaten the context of what comics are/ever will be. It is what makes this artform unique from other forms. This should not be stiffling to the creator, but rather liberating. Don't think, "comics= X men" - rather, think "comics=cinema"(I'm oversimplifying here, I know, but I hope you get the gist.)

I personally enjoy the art of story telling, and hope to become more and more proficient in expressing my ideas and emotions through that form.

However, I feel that requiring that a comic tell a story is a limiting factor. I hope it didn't seem like I was arguing against stories, or saying that the art form itelf is bad in any way. Like I said previously, I have never actually written a comic with no story, so I am hardly the champion by example. I am not the champion by personal taste, either, since I love stories. I just felt that personal preference on the issue of story telling should not appear in the definition of comics, lest more experimental works be banned from the ranks...

What I meant when I compared comics = story to comics = x-men is that the "=" sign is a limiting factor. Comics may (and maybe even should) have a story, but should not equal story (or better put, story should not be a required condition of comics).

Is that more clear?

glych · Post by **glych** » Fri Dec 07, 2001 5:33 pm

jason: that's what I've been saying!

It's not what is a comic, it's what isn't.

Maybe it is a new medium because it umbrella's so many different things...

LIke I said before- a painting can be painted in many different materials, but it's still a painting, even if an oil painting looks in no way like a mixed media piece with nylon and puffy paints.

Both are still paintings.

Now, as for comics-

a web-cmics, with expanded canvases and animated gifs is still a comic even when compared to a Japanese Manga (pardon my slang term, g) with half tones and kanji.

The same can be said about Johnny the Homicidal Maniac vs Sixgun, X-:Men vs The Makeshift Miracle, Maus vs Understanding Comics, etc. etc. etc...

All of these things are way different, but they're all still comics...

So, maybe we should define it as an art-medium, and define it's sub-catagories as:

webcomics
comic books
graphic novels
strips
ashcans
instructional
etc.
etc.
etc.

Am...

Am I getting warmer?

-glych

_________________
---
God is Love,
Love is Blind,
Ray Charles is blind.
God is Ray Charles!??!
http://glych.keenspace.com

[ This Message was edited by: glych on 2001-12-07 16:39 ]

fredirc · Post by **fredirc** » Fri Dec 07, 2001 9:04 pm

On 2001-12-07 16:33, glych wrote:
jason: that's what I've been saying!

It's not what is a comic, it's what isn't.

Maybe it is a new medium because it umbrella's so many different things...

gazorenzoku · Post by **gazorenzoku** » Fri Dec 07, 2001 11:57 pm

On 2001-12-07 16:33, glych wrote:
So, maybe we should define it as an art-medium, and define it's sub-catagories as:

webcomics
comic books
graphic novels
strips
ashcans
instructional
etc.
etc.
etc.

sounds great to me!

Jason Tocci · Post by **Jason Tocci** » Sat Dec 08, 2001 3:35 am

If we define comics in term of the subcategories of comics, how do we determine if a newly invented subcategory should fit under comics? What must it have in common with every existing subcategory?

Also, I don't think you can just say that it's not what "is" comics but what "isn't" -- in part because what you're trying to do is draw the fine line between what is and what isn't, and in (much LARGER) part because that line is going to move depending on how you WANT to define comics.

Right now (this may change next week, or when it's not 3 am) I am a big fan of saying that it would solve a lot of problems to define comics as a tradition -- "the comics tradition," which consists of works of art made for purposes of storytelling, humor, and social commentary, and which OFTEN (but not always) experiment with (or make use of conventions of) static image sequences, overlapping or blending of images with text, and/or cartooning.

Personally, I think it's really necessary to take a close look at everything that's ever been widely known as "comics" before one can even begin to come up with one's own definition for comics. I also think it's really important to address the question of whether single-panel cartoons like "The Far Side" are comics, which we've not yet adequately done. Really all "The Far Side" has in common with "I Paparazzi" is common origins. I suspect that people have been reluctant to address this issue mainly because it makes defining comics as an art form much, much harder and more confusing. But we can't ignore this issue. So maybe comics aren't an artform but a tradition that makes use of a few artforms (of course, this still allows for specific works of comics to be works of art!).

Jason

P.S. I remember in Understanding Comics (I think) it was said that a repeated image IS a comic if it's the same object in two different moments of time, but ISN'T a comic if it's just two pictures of the same thing side by side. I'd just like to remind people that time passage between panels is not necessary for something to be a sequence in a comic -- remember the manga sequences with aspect-to-aspect transitions that do not necessarily connote different moments in time. I bring this up now because the little brain-teaser fredirc posted reminded me of it for some reason, and I thought someone might bring up something about the mountains being a comic if they are different moments in time. Anyway, I haven't figured out how to deal with that "mountain range" yet.

[ This Message was edited by: Jason Tocci on 2001-12-08 02:49 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Jason Tocci on 2001-12-08 02:51 ]