Invisible Forces: Way cool

[kaos_de_moria]

hey beckerson,

i think i could not disagree with zou more than i do.

when the internet first appeared it was a great way to send messages fast around the world and to store data decentralised, so it's save in case of a strike from the soviets.

and then they invented the web. and since then everyone speaks about he *new* possibilities and so on.

but what happened. up to today the web is justy more than a better newspaper. it's text and fotos presented and not alot of things really use the options you have.

what scott presented with 'can't stop thinking' et al. was for the first time an enhancement of classical media you could not do in tv or print.

correct me if i'm wrong, but as far as i remember webcomics exist for barely 10 years now and as webcomics grow the technology base is growing. just think of java or flash. besides the ines had to become fast enough first, so you could realy download big pictures.

there is some great comics on the web, but many of the great comics are not good webcomics, as you could actually print them and it wouldn't change a thing. they are presented on the web, because it's easier, cheaper, faster.

i'll make another example. old and modern literature. why did they not write any novels in the od ages? why did they always write rhimes or at least verses which folowed a strict scheme? because the only way to bring them to the pople was to learn them by heart. you could not learn it by heart if the text woud not help you to do so. so how did it come we have so many novels now? cheap paper and the technology of print. the great works of today actually use that technology. and the funny thing is, you don't even realise it anymore. but of course print is around for a couple of years by now.

i guess you could say the same of colour and sound in movies. of course, when a technology gets established after a while it can be cool, not using the technology. but that's only after some time has passed. and now again.

correct me if i'm wrong, but as far as i remember webcomics exist for barely 10 years now.

comics have never been as big as literature or films, so the use of a new technology needs more time to establish itsef than in the other medias. so experimenting with new interfaces is quiet as intresting as it can get. and that's why people talk about the interface. do we actually discuss every new web- or printcomic here? i mean the plot. no, we don't. there is alot of very good works out there, and we still don't discuss them.

but we discuss invisible forces because of it's interface. so discussing it's interface does not say anything about it's plot, because the discussion was from beginning on not about the plot.

and that's why i actualy think the mr. nile experiment was one of the best web comics i have ever read. (thanks merlin)

(http://e-merl.com/mrnile/index.htm)

btw, i don't want to offend you, it's just my opinion.
kaos

[William G]

As for gimmicks, that's nothing new in the comic strip world either. Check out Gustave Verbeek's "Upside Downs" from 100 years ago. And how many of us got eye-strain as kids, trying to read 3-D comics, with those crappy cardboard glasses?

And where are they now?

hey beckerson,

Hey Kaos.

comics have never been as big as literature or films, so the use of a new technology needs more time to establish itsef than in the other medias. so experimenting with new interfaces is quiet as intresting as it can get. and that's why people talk about the interface. do we actually discuss every new web- or printcomic here? i mean the plot. no, we don't. there is alot of very good works out there, and we still don't discuss them.

but we discuss invisible forces because of it's interface. so discussing it's interface does not say anything about it's plot, because the discussion was from beginning on not about the plot.

If the webcomic is overshadowed by it's interface, then it's lost it's reason as a comic.

Lets be real simple about this- Despite what Scott McCloud suggested in Understanding Comics, the comic has only existed since modern print. And while similar methods have been used to solve the same problems of how to have text and images together, comics exist as a thing born of print. It's more like convergent evolution rather than the same pedigree.

Since comics have been a thing of print, the methods used to make comics are from print- Gutters, balloons, panel transitions, etc. I agree that "webcomics" as they are now still have a lot of that hold over, but they need to look like they could be printed because they stop being comics after that. These solutions to the demands of print are what make comics what they are. I know I'm not a progessive sort of guy, but I feel that you cant extract what makes a medium and still consider it the same thing. It's like having the technology to pour images into a brain and trying to call it a movie.

Do I think they're lesser pieces of art? Nope. But when "webcomics" get to the point of not using any of the tools that made comics to begin with, they stop being comics and become something else.

There are two directions for us to go here- Keep using what makes comics what they are, or discard the solutions that the dmands of print created and become something else. And I dont think that webcomics are currently at the point were they can afford to become something else.

As I think of it, I guess it's all about if you see the term "Webcomics" as a name for a new medium, or if you see it as a cutsey word for comics on the web. I see it as the second, and I think that we should be focusing on producing quality versions of the second. ie- Make some good fucking comics first, get the audience that print comics alienated. (I firmly believe that the reason the print comics industry died was because Marvel / DC/ Image, were (currently are) producing shit no one wants to read, and not because of any weakness in the medium)

That means using the unique things that make comics "COMICS" to produce some stuff that people outside of our geek circle can enjoy. And then pasting them up on the web. I feel the experiementors should be calling their stuff "Webart" more that "Webcomics" because they are moving away from what makes comics what they are.

We can go in cicles about this forever, but I see it as a choice between pleasing the masses or pleasing ourselves. And it's not only about the interface- The geek webcomic market is saturated. We need to please the non-geek masses, because even though the masses dont give a crap about us, they're the ones with the un-tapped money.

[DecafSilicon]

Beckerson, I admire your well-thought-out view, but I've skipped around the Internet too much to believe that previous categorized art forms apply. I'd like to defend the pseudocomic.

The Internet thrives on innovation, even if only because its trendier-than-thou users prefer innovation to good content. The most popular technologies have combined old idioms to form new ones: forums become wikis, videos become menus, home pages become blogs, blogs become RSS feeds. Since webcomics already have a decent following, they can afford to branch and meld with other idioms.

I do agree that some webcomics are overshadowed by their interfaces, as are some blogs, static pages, videos, Flash menus, and every other idiom on the web.

The biggest example of a poorly executed new idiom was the home page. But it eventually marginalized its cat galleries and shoutouts and adapted blogs, CSS, and animation. In other words, the crap came first, and the class came later. Through all this, static personal web pages survived in their own right.

I propose that pseudocomics will follow the same path and sprout new sturdy idioms while still allowing true comics to survive.

[kaos_de_moria]

We can go in cicles about this forever, but I see it as a choice between pleasing the masses or pleasing ourselves. And it's not only about the interface- The geek webcomic market is saturated. We need to please the non-geek masses, because even though the masses dont give a crap about us, they're the ones with the un-tapped money.

i think what we have here is more or less the difference of commercial web comics going out to please the broader market (which is not there yet) and art web comics which try to provoke with new ideas.

there always is both, in every media there is. there is hollywood and then there is movies like 'festen' ' the idiots' or 'audition' (did not like the third one particularily).

many hollywood movies got new ideas from artistic video clips. video clips usually don't tell a very good story, but it's an art of its own. (just remember the turning effet in matrix.) i guess we have the same with comics.

kaos

[Merlin]

> But to turn around "Just because it's not required doesn't mean it shouldn't be done."
> I'd like give you this quote- "You can drive a car with your feet, too. That doesnt
> mean that you should do it."

Um? but you do drive a car with your feet. I mean, accelerating, breaking and changing gears (in a manual) are all pretty feet dependent.

Kind of shot yourself in the foot with that one.

> My proof for this is that, before I showed up spreading pessimism, everyone praised
> the interface for Invisible Forces, but not one word was said about the comic itself.

I should point out that I haven?t said anything about Invisible Forces yet, positive or negative.

To do so now: In terms of story, it?s too early to say. There?s something interesting going on here but this is clearly just a teaser for a much larger narrative, so I?ll just have to wait and see. This is why I think its fair that posts on the thread have, for the moment, focused on the comic?s presentation. There?s simply more of note to discuss at this early stage in the narrative.

And in terms of presentation it?s? interesting. There?s some good stuff (the way the focus of the end of the trail becomes the main element of the following panel) and some bad stuff (the uncertain loading times really make things incredibly confusing on anything other than the absolutely fastest connection). In my opinion the whole thing could really be better implemented in Flash, rather than using JavaScript rollovers. So there you go.

> Lets be real simple about this- Despite what Scott McCloud suggested in
> Understanding Comics, the comic has only existed since modern print.

Well, okay. Real simple: On this point I agree with Scott, not you.

> We can go in circles about this forever, but I see it as a choice between pleasing the
> masses or pleasing ourselves.

I think it?s a bit more than that. But in general terms you?re right ? I get the impression we just have a difference of viewpoint on this topic and are going to keep going around in circles on it.

As far as the masses are concerned? well, really, I?m not. Concerned, that is. It?s not as if I?d turn down mass acceptance and fame if it happened along but, really, if that?s what I wanted I wouldn?t be working in any form of comics at all. I?d? I don?t know. Kill someone famous and then write an interesting autobiography, probably. Anything I create has to ? first and foremost ? please me as a creator. If I succeed in doing that then, my experience suggests, that piece will find an audience. Not always a huge audience. But a large enough audience to justify the time I spent creating it.

[William G]

> But to turn around "Just because it's not required doesn't mean it shouldn't be done."
> I'd like give you this quote- "You can drive a car with your feet, too. That doesnt
> mean that you should do it."

Um? but you do drive a car with your feet. I mean, accelerating, breaking and changing gears (in a manual) are all pretty feet dependent.

Kind of shot yourself in the foot with that one.

We call it "sarcasm" in the back-woods I come from.

In my opinion the whole thing could really be better implemented in Flash, rather than using JavaScript rollovers. So there you go.

And my opinion claims otherwise. There's no more to be said to each other on the matter.

> Lets be real simple about this- Despite what Scott McCloud suggested in
> Understanding Comics, the comic has only existed since modern print.

Well, okay. Real simple: On this point I agree with Scott, not you.

I'm certain Scott will be warmed to the cockles of his heart when he reads that.

As far as the masses are concerned? well, really, I?m not. Concerned, that is. It?s not as if I?d turn down mass acceptance and fame if it happened along but, really, if that?s what I wanted I wouldn?t be working in any form of comics at all. I?d? I don?t know. Kill someone famous and then write an interesting autobiography, probably. Anything I create has to ? first and foremost ? please me as a creator. If I succeed in doing that then, my experience suggests, that piece will find an audience. Not always a huge audience. But a large enough audience to justify the time I spent creating it.

I used to think that too. Then I realized all of the big names in comics (the guys making money off of their creative endeavour) all found an untapped market and mined it for all it's worth. "Build it and they will come." only works on a limited basis.

Only a fool doesnt want to earn money from their art, and "selling out" isn't a bad thing. For example- Some claim Metallica wasnt a good band after they started making videos. But they gained a much larger audience and as a result they're still making the music they want, AND they're all swimming around in a vault full of money like Scrooge McDuck.

But webcomics/ pseudo-comics arent seen as marketable outside of the (saturated) geek realm, so our dreams of living off of our collective insanity will never come true until we make it so by "selling out".

If you don't want to "sell out" then that's totally cool. Every medium needs visonaries to go and discover new ways of doing things that their more successful comrades can rip them off and apply it to their current formula. Thus gaining the fame and making the money while the visionary grinds away in obscurity.

[Guest]

Only a fool doesnt want to earn money from their art, and "selling out" isn't a bad thing. For example- Some claim Metallica wasnt a good band after they started making videos. But they gained a much larger audience and as a result they're still making the music they want, AND they're all swimming around in a vault full of money like Scrooge McDuck.

And we all hate them because they sold our names to the RIAA. But only a fool wouldn't want MONEY! Steal from old ladies and orphans! Mine for oil in alaska! If you can make money by drawing a comic about a bunch of lesbians playing video games, who CARES if it's terrible!

I don't think there's really any factual disagreement here, just a miscommunication. Merlin thought you were critisizing gimmicky innovation on an artistic basis, when really you were critisizing it on an economic basis.