Hi everyone,
I'm currently attempting to design an experiment involving comics as part of my doctorate research into new forms of interactive digital media. After reading Scott's 'Understanding/Reinventing Comics' I thought it would be interesting to try and find some empirical support for his view that iconic representations such as comic book art allow a higher degree of reader involvement than more traditional representations (e.g. film, phot-realistic images). I believe that if this view is supported then it can be used to draw uses into new interactive media.
A comic book generated real-time to your own preferences anyone?
Anyway, that's my distant aim right now I need to build the materials for my research. Does anybody (Scott, if you're reading this?) know of any research that has been done to investigate this style of iconic communication? Or (as in Asheess's thread) is there any repository for the iconography used by comic book artists, the conventions we all understand that form the 'language of comic books' but, as far as I know, have never been documented? If there's nothing like this then it's a major loss to the comic book community.
Hope some of you can help. Views on any of this stuff would be appreciated.
cheers
noir
Comic research and iconic lexicon
Moderator: Moderators
-
gazorenzoku
- Reinvents understanding
- Posts: 629
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 7:00 pm
- Location: Sapporo, Japan
- Contact:
The late psychoanylist Carl Jung has written tons of stuff on the power of the symbol (which I believe is his way of talking about something very similar to what is going on in McCloud's "icons"). None if it is directly related to comics per se, but I believe it would make a wonderful point of reference.
I always hate it when people researching comics try to "justify" their opinions and what not by quoting so-called "more serious" material such as this sort of stuff by Jung, as if the field of comics research needs help from more respectable fields of research... But in this case you really can't find a more interesting introduction into the "collective unconscious" and "archetypes" (elements which I believe are at work in the "icons").
Whether you use Jung's writings in your final work or not, they are invaluable in researching the power of the symbol (or in your case, how and why people relate to symbols). Jung takes a look at mythology, religion, science, and art in relation to these symbols as well.
However, reading Jung's work can be a bit heafty. I tried to read one of his books straight up once, and had to put it down because it was just to heavy on the mind.
Now I am reading "The Portable Jung", edited by the late Joseph Campbell (you may be familiar with some of his works, like "Hero with a Thousand Faces" or the t.v. interview with Bill Moyers "The Power of Myth"). Campbell presents a series of writings by Jung in a easy to read format. The order of the writings is such that if you start at the begining and read all the way through, new ideas are introduced at just the right moment to aid you in understanding the text as it progresses. I did skip the stuff on male/female psychic relations, though, cause it seemed like a bunch of BS...
I cannot think of a book that would be a better "jumping off point" than this one.
I always hate it when people researching comics try to "justify" their opinions and what not by quoting so-called "more serious" material such as this sort of stuff by Jung, as if the field of comics research needs help from more respectable fields of research... But in this case you really can't find a more interesting introduction into the "collective unconscious" and "archetypes" (elements which I believe are at work in the "icons").
Whether you use Jung's writings in your final work or not, they are invaluable in researching the power of the symbol (or in your case, how and why people relate to symbols). Jung takes a look at mythology, religion, science, and art in relation to these symbols as well.
However, reading Jung's work can be a bit heafty. I tried to read one of his books straight up once, and had to put it down because it was just to heavy on the mind.
Now I am reading "The Portable Jung", edited by the late Joseph Campbell (you may be familiar with some of his works, like "Hero with a Thousand Faces" or the t.v. interview with Bill Moyers "The Power of Myth"). Campbell presents a series of writings by Jung in a easy to read format. The order of the writings is such that if you start at the begining and read all the way through, new ideas are introduced at just the right moment to aid you in understanding the text as it progresses. I did skip the stuff on male/female psychic relations, though, cause it seemed like a bunch of BS...
I cannot think of a book that would be a better "jumping off point" than this one.
Vince Coleman
<A HREF = "http://www.vince-coleman.com" target=_blank> www.vince-coleman.com
comics and stuff...</A>
<A HREF = "http://www.vince-coleman.com" target=_blank> www.vince-coleman.com
comics and stuff...</A>
Thanks for the Jung stuff.
I was already aware of this as I've just finished a degree in Psychology and I read a lot of Jung last year. I agree that 'The Portable Jung' is probably the best introduction and as it's written by Joseph campbell it brings a particular slant that I found very useful.
Another psychologist interested in this type of innate storytelling is Jerome Bruner but he is less commited to innate symbols (e.g. archetypes) and more for innate cognition of structure, which is more my opinion.
The reason I was looking for a dictionary of the symbols is that I don't believe the symbols themselves are innate, just the concepts they communicate. There's a lot of work out there that shows that people take time to adapt to the comic book form and by designing it according to convention this time is speeded up. But what are these conventions?
Do you think some comic book artists would be willing to fill in some knowledge elicitation questionnaires (simple questions asking what they think is the best representation of a concept)? If I managed to get enough feedback from a study liek this and a genertal consensus then I'd be willing to publish the results on-line.
Also, does anybpdy know of any really good and informative guides to Comic book art? "How to draw cartoons/comics" type things?
Thanks for now
noir
I was already aware of this as I've just finished a degree in Psychology and I read a lot of Jung last year. I agree that 'The Portable Jung' is probably the best introduction and as it's written by Joseph campbell it brings a particular slant that I found very useful.
Another psychologist interested in this type of innate storytelling is Jerome Bruner but he is less commited to innate symbols (e.g. archetypes) and more for innate cognition of structure, which is more my opinion.
The reason I was looking for a dictionary of the symbols is that I don't believe the symbols themselves are innate, just the concepts they communicate. There's a lot of work out there that shows that people take time to adapt to the comic book form and by designing it according to convention this time is speeded up. But what are these conventions?
Do you think some comic book artists would be willing to fill in some knowledge elicitation questionnaires (simple questions asking what they think is the best representation of a concept)? If I managed to get enough feedback from a study liek this and a genertal consensus then I'd be willing to publish the results on-line.
Also, does anybpdy know of any really good and informative guides to Comic book art? "How to draw cartoons/comics" type things?
Thanks for now
noir
-
sandy carruthers
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 44
- Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2001 7:00 pm
- Location: PEI Canada
- Contact:
Pick up 'DRAW!' magazine! It's probably one of the very best 'How to' magazines out there. If youre local comic shop doesn't carry it, go here:
http://www.twomorrows.com/
good luck!
http://www.twomorrows.com/
good luck!
-
gazorenzoku
- Reinvents understanding
- Posts: 629
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 7:00 pm
- Location: Sapporo, Japan
- Contact:
Well, it sounds like you know tons more than me about all of that Jung stuff. Just for the record, I didn't want to say that McCloud and Jung were necessarily talking about the same thing, just that some of the ideas overlap in an interesting way. I look forward to checking out Bruner.
I have never heard of a book collecting or anylizing comic book related symbols, but maybe it might exist. If not, it is about time for someone to write one. I know dream symbol books exist, though they aren't directly comic related, and you probably already know about them anyhow.
Personally, I would be very glad to help out with any sort of research you want to do in this area. The iconic value of comics is something very dear to me both as a reader and as a creator, so let me know if I can be of help in any way. I feel that most creators would be helpful as well.
As for drawing traditional style comic book art, there are plenty of books out there. I have two in my possesion. The titles are:
"The Total Cartoonist" by Ken Muse and Prentice-Hall
1984, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way by Stan Lee and John Buscema
1978, Simon & Shuster, Rockefeller Center, 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020
Wish I had more info for you... I look forward to hearing more about your research as it progresses. The problem with comics is that the study done on them is so shallow in comparrison to other art forms that everytime someone says, "Hey, it would be great if there was a book about this aspect of comics," they usually have to write it themselves. Most people just don't have it in them to do the proper research and write the book that needs to be written... so the going seems slow (though I suppose on a positive note that the pace is picking up, and things are supposedly a lot better than they were before).
Good luck, and let me know if I can help!!
I have never heard of a book collecting or anylizing comic book related symbols, but maybe it might exist. If not, it is about time for someone to write one. I know dream symbol books exist, though they aren't directly comic related, and you probably already know about them anyhow.
Personally, I would be very glad to help out with any sort of research you want to do in this area. The iconic value of comics is something very dear to me both as a reader and as a creator, so let me know if I can be of help in any way. I feel that most creators would be helpful as well.
As for drawing traditional style comic book art, there are plenty of books out there. I have two in my possesion. The titles are:
"The Total Cartoonist" by Ken Muse and Prentice-Hall
1984, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
How to Draw Comics the Marvel Way by Stan Lee and John Buscema
1978, Simon & Shuster, Rockefeller Center, 1230 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020
Wish I had more info for you... I look forward to hearing more about your research as it progresses. The problem with comics is that the study done on them is so shallow in comparrison to other art forms that everytime someone says, "Hey, it would be great if there was a book about this aspect of comics," they usually have to write it themselves. Most people just don't have it in them to do the proper research and write the book that needs to be written... so the going seems slow (though I suppose on a positive note that the pace is picking up, and things are supposedly a lot better than they were before).
Good luck, and let me know if I can help!!
Vince Coleman
<A HREF = "http://www.vince-coleman.com" target=_blank> www.vince-coleman.com
comics and stuff...</A>
<A HREF = "http://www.vince-coleman.com" target=_blank> www.vince-coleman.com
comics and stuff...</A>
-
Doc MacDougal
- Frequent Poster
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 7:00 pm
- Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
- Contact:
Have you considered reading up on the field of semiology? I was briefly familiarized with this discipline, the study of signs and their meanings, during a film criticism course last term.
The basic summary of what I learned is that there are supposedly three basic classes of signs. To use semiological terminology, these are icons (in which the signifier looks like the signified), indices (in which the sign has some direct logical relationship to reality), and symbols (which have an arbitrary relationship to their signifieds).
The material went on to say that the motion picture is such an engaging medium because, when properly used, it can make use of all three classes of signs.
Doc.
The basic summary of what I learned is that there are supposedly three basic classes of signs. To use semiological terminology, these are icons (in which the signifier looks like the signified), indices (in which the sign has some direct logical relationship to reality), and symbols (which have an arbitrary relationship to their signifieds).
The material went on to say that the motion picture is such an engaging medium because, when properly used, it can make use of all three classes of signs.
Doc.
-
gazorenzoku
- Reinvents understanding
- Posts: 629
- Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 7:00 pm
- Location: Sapporo, Japan
- Contact:
to noir: I don't feel that I have been able to grasp your research idea fully. Could you explain it in more detail? Also, I thought of another book that might be of interest. "The Superhero Encyclopedia" contains a list of all sorts of superheroes, their costumes, and other fun info. I think there is now a companion called "The Super Villain Encyclopedia" or something like that...
to Doc: Film studies... it seems reasonable that since modern comics draw upon cinematography so much, any study in film could reasonably be applied loosely to comics... Though of course it goes with out saying that the process of applying research from another field onto comics would have to be done with the utmost care so as to avoid the mistake of overlooking & misunderstanding elements that only exist within comics, etc. Also, since it seems that "noir" is planning to prove that comics have something innate in them that is different from other fields, something like semiology designed to describe film might be a difficult resource. Though, of course it might help to know what other art media are about in depth before studying the way comics work, so a good comparison can be made...
Though I have no idea if semiology would help "noir" or not, I want to know more about it!! It sounds very interesting! Can you suggest any good texts?
vince
to Doc: Film studies... it seems reasonable that since modern comics draw upon cinematography so much, any study in film could reasonably be applied loosely to comics... Though of course it goes with out saying that the process of applying research from another field onto comics would have to be done with the utmost care so as to avoid the mistake of overlooking & misunderstanding elements that only exist within comics, etc. Also, since it seems that "noir" is planning to prove that comics have something innate in them that is different from other fields, something like semiology designed to describe film might be a difficult resource. Though, of course it might help to know what other art media are about in depth before studying the way comics work, so a good comparison can be made...
Though I have no idea if semiology would help "noir" or not, I want to know more about it!! It sounds very interesting! Can you suggest any good texts?
vince
Vince Coleman
<A HREF = "http://www.vince-coleman.com" target=_blank> www.vince-coleman.com
comics and stuff...</A>
<A HREF = "http://www.vince-coleman.com" target=_blank> www.vince-coleman.com
comics and stuff...</A>
-
Doc MacDougal
- Frequent Poster
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 7:00 pm
- Location: Burnaby, BC, Canada
- Contact:
I've already disposed of the course reader for that class, so I can't point you to the texts that I actually read. However, I grabbed this link http://carbon.cudenver.edu/~mryder/itc_ ... otics.html, which seems to have a lot of basic definitions and information on, what I learned as semiology but which they call, semiotics. Especially take a look at Peircean branch of the discipline, as it deals particularly well with visuals.
I'll just clarify that this isn't, like, a film studies technique. We were simply applying it to interpreting mise-en-scene. It's a whole field of study unto itself, I believe related to linguistics.
Doc.
I'll just clarify that this isn't, like, a film studies technique. We were simply applying it to interpreting mise-en-scene. It's a whole field of study unto itself, I believe related to linguistics.
Doc.
lol. hey, this is good stuff.. continueing on the semiologie.. (sp?) on a side branch of this we have iconologie. (already named, I think, as one of the three in semiologie?)
I know that a lot of dutch masters around the 16th century (and father) used a lot of signs in their paintings to convey meaning to an illiterate community.
arthistorians rever to them as incons.
most of these sign are either based on bible scripts or on other at those times popular religious writing though.. (so, most of these signs aren't understood today)
one example of such a painter was Jan Steen. but just about all of his contemporaries fit the mark.. (another earlier, fun guy was Hieronymus Bosh)
it's not exacly comics either, but I know there's a lot written about it.
I know that a lot of dutch masters around the 16th century (and father) used a lot of signs in their paintings to convey meaning to an illiterate community.
arthistorians rever to them as incons.
most of these sign are either based on bible scripts or on other at those times popular religious writing though.. (so, most of these signs aren't understood today)
one example of such a painter was Jan Steen. but just about all of his contemporaries fit the mark.. (another earlier, fun guy was Hieronymus Bosh)
it's not exacly comics either, but I know there's a lot written about it.
-
Greg Stephens
- Forum Founder
- Posts: 3862
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2001 7:00 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, California, USA
- Contact:
I can't vouch for the quality of any of these books, but there's a few to be found here:
http://www.bluelinepro.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=BL&Category_Code=005arb
At the very least, the digital coloring book looks interesting.
http://www.bluelinepro.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=BL&Category_Code=005arb
At the very least, the digital coloring book looks interesting.
Good morning! That's a nice tnetennba.
Thanks to everyone for giving me some tips, they've proved really useful.
I would love to be able to explain more clearly what my research concerns but at the moment it's a tad amorphous. Basically my interest was kicked off by Scott McCloud's claim that the 'cartoon-like' drawings in comics books is a more priveleged form of visual representation than say film for drawing a reader into the story. By making the representation more 'iconic' (as he phrases it) it promotes reader projection of self into the comicbook. Intuitively i believe him but I'm struggling to find any empirical support.
I have been researching every piece of literature i could get my hands on that has somethign to do with pictorial communication and some of it is useful. The semiotics stuff you guys referenced is very good for identifying all the different aspects of a comic book and building structures into the language system comics use. My main reference has been 'Handbook of Semiotics' by Winfred Noth which has everything you need in it to get started (and a thousand other things you don't, it's a bit heavy going!). The Piercean stuff is best for comics although most theorists disrespect comics saying that they are immature and have a very limited range of storytelling which pisses me off. I just wish more researchers would appreciate the more adventurous artists like Spiegelman, Eisner, Gaiman, etc who realise the power of combining images and text.
as for Ashess' query about a comic book directory/dictionary/lexicon thingy that ca be used to reference stylistic and language conventions: I found one (Yippee!). It's called 'The Lexicon of Comicana' by Mort Walker (the creator of Beetle Bailey) and is a witty, satirical look at the symbols used in comics across the world but it also provides a great inventory of these devices. Haven't actually got my hands on it yet but I've been told it's very useful. Might be worth giving it a look at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 54-2873540
Anyway, thanks for everybody's tips. I'll keep you all posted on any progress that I make. There's a slim possibility that I'll be posting my own overview of the semiotics of comics on-line so if I do I'll post the URL up here.
cheers
noir
I would love to be able to explain more clearly what my research concerns but at the moment it's a tad amorphous. Basically my interest was kicked off by Scott McCloud's claim that the 'cartoon-like' drawings in comics books is a more priveleged form of visual representation than say film for drawing a reader into the story. By making the representation more 'iconic' (as he phrases it) it promotes reader projection of self into the comicbook. Intuitively i believe him but I'm struggling to find any empirical support.
I have been researching every piece of literature i could get my hands on that has somethign to do with pictorial communication and some of it is useful. The semiotics stuff you guys referenced is very good for identifying all the different aspects of a comic book and building structures into the language system comics use. My main reference has been 'Handbook of Semiotics' by Winfred Noth which has everything you need in it to get started (and a thousand other things you don't, it's a bit heavy going!). The Piercean stuff is best for comics although most theorists disrespect comics saying that they are immature and have a very limited range of storytelling which pisses me off. I just wish more researchers would appreciate the more adventurous artists like Spiegelman, Eisner, Gaiman, etc who realise the power of combining images and text.
as for Ashess' query about a comic book directory/dictionary/lexicon thingy that ca be used to reference stylistic and language conventions: I found one (Yippee!). It's called 'The Lexicon of Comicana' by Mort Walker (the creator of Beetle Bailey) and is a witty, satirical look at the symbols used in comics across the world but it also provides a great inventory of these devices. Haven't actually got my hands on it yet but I've been told it's very useful. Might be worth giving it a look at:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 54-2873540
Anyway, thanks for everybody's tips. I'll keep you all posted on any progress that I make. There's a slim possibility that I'll be posting my own overview of the semiotics of comics on-line so if I do I'll post the URL up here.
cheers
noir
-
Guest
I've got my own theories about iconic representation in comics (who said something about having to write it yourself 
)
As with two "comics" dealing with the same subject but using a different iconic approach, I remember reading two entirely different comics dealing with issues like incest, and the power it implies, namely "Indian summer" (written by Hugo Pratt, drawn by Manara) and the now famous incestuous family comic by Robert Crumb (forgot the title though it's featured in the David Lynch documentary movie "Crumb").
While Pratt & Manara focus on the litterary aspect (development of character in a historical setting), Crumb has a typical "iconic" approach, using an American suburbian family, drawn in a "comicy" way (Little Orphan Annie style). The two works are very powerful, but stress the power of comics. When the incest/rape/pedophiliac relationship comes to light, in Indian Summer, we are emotionally torn by the feelings evoked in the imagery, as well as the story, but the message is extremely complex and open to interpretation, whereas Crumb is more direct in his icons ("funny" style, contrasted with crude themes).
The emotional response is more direct also: you beget a shock-effect much the same way as a David Lynch fiction or a "Clockwork Orange type movie" gets.
This has to do with the power of visual symbols and mainly the power of the comic artist to give you the information in bitesize "punches".
As Scott McCloud demonstrates in "reinventing comics" it's this visual power of the still images analyzed one by one which gives a direct approach not found in the classical arts, bundled with the fact a comic is more than just one image: it's a narrative constituted in the human brain.
Also it is possible for the still images to have the effect of paintings (still image alone), thus going directly to the visual center of the brain, without its limitations (every image can be set in an emotional context, as in Indian Summer, or be left as powerful iconic bricks to be connected by the reader, as in Crumb's comic)
The icons in comic culture are also entirely different from those in classical arts, as they suspend disbelief in a way Film or Painting could never do: they follow thereaders speed of understanding/reading.
Whereas one reader reads a comic in 10 minutes, another could spend 1 hour analyzing every page. Nor the Film media (TV included), nor the Classical arts have this kind of temporal asset. Litterature has this asset, but misses the power of clear visual stimuli (You rarely are aware of what happens further down the page and three lines before when reading a particular sentence), and while a painting can be analysed for 5 hours the basic image has already rooted itself in your brain (except for paintings that "read like comics" like Hieronymus Bosch, or Brueghel's complex "find Waldo" type paintings).
The schism between being driven along a line (the narrative), and being free to analyse, reanalyse and develop freely in time and space, ideas that grow either more complex or more precise is a power too long underestimated.
As for the icons themselves, they are mainly a way to take advantage of direct stimuli, while being still free to develop more "complex" thoughts by letting them "live" and "unroll" in space and/or time
Well, hope hese thoughts help
Hope I'm not getting overpatronizing
)As with two "comics" dealing with the same subject but using a different iconic approach, I remember reading two entirely different comics dealing with issues like incest, and the power it implies, namely "Indian summer" (written by Hugo Pratt, drawn by Manara) and the now famous incestuous family comic by Robert Crumb (forgot the title though it's featured in the David Lynch documentary movie "Crumb").
While Pratt & Manara focus on the litterary aspect (development of character in a historical setting), Crumb has a typical "iconic" approach, using an American suburbian family, drawn in a "comicy" way (Little Orphan Annie style). The two works are very powerful, but stress the power of comics. When the incest/rape/pedophiliac relationship comes to light, in Indian Summer, we are emotionally torn by the feelings evoked in the imagery, as well as the story, but the message is extremely complex and open to interpretation, whereas Crumb is more direct in his icons ("funny" style, contrasted with crude themes).
The emotional response is more direct also: you beget a shock-effect much the same way as a David Lynch fiction or a "Clockwork Orange type movie" gets.
This has to do with the power of visual symbols and mainly the power of the comic artist to give you the information in bitesize "punches".
As Scott McCloud demonstrates in "reinventing comics" it's this visual power of the still images analyzed one by one which gives a direct approach not found in the classical arts, bundled with the fact a comic is more than just one image: it's a narrative constituted in the human brain.
Also it is possible for the still images to have the effect of paintings (still image alone), thus going directly to the visual center of the brain, without its limitations (every image can be set in an emotional context, as in Indian Summer, or be left as powerful iconic bricks to be connected by the reader, as in Crumb's comic)
The icons in comic culture are also entirely different from those in classical arts, as they suspend disbelief in a way Film or Painting could never do: they follow thereaders speed of understanding/reading.
Whereas one reader reads a comic in 10 minutes, another could spend 1 hour analyzing every page. Nor the Film media (TV included), nor the Classical arts have this kind of temporal asset. Litterature has this asset, but misses the power of clear visual stimuli (You rarely are aware of what happens further down the page and three lines before when reading a particular sentence), and while a painting can be analysed for 5 hours the basic image has already rooted itself in your brain (except for paintings that "read like comics" like Hieronymus Bosch, or Brueghel's complex "find Waldo" type paintings).
The schism between being driven along a line (the narrative), and being free to analyse, reanalyse and develop freely in time and space, ideas that grow either more complex or more precise is a power too long underestimated.
As for the icons themselves, they are mainly a way to take advantage of direct stimuli, while being still free to develop more "complex" thoughts by letting them "live" and "unroll" in space and/or time
Well, hope hese thoughts help
Hope I'm not getting overpatronizing
This post was mine but I didn't log in ::whoops:: 
Check out my new site (under construction) at: InkAddict
Noir, you might find it worthwhile to read up on manga and anime style comics. Anime-style comics are often extremely iconic, and make extensive use of symbolism [or indexing?] as well. Antonia Levi's Samurai from Outer Space, for example, discusses the use of symbolism in manga fairly extensively. Though I don't agree with all of her conclusions, her deconstruction of manga certainly brings up some interesting ideas about how the reader interprets comics. [If I had my copy of that book with me, I'd even be able to outline what exactly those points were, haha. Sorry.]
Regarding your research's intent [to show that comics' use of iconic representations allow a higher degree of involvement than other art-forms]-- that seems very hard to quantify. Wouldn't animated film be able to achieve the same effect? What about video games? I'm a little surprised at the way your research seems to be structured... you seem intent upon finding any evidence possible to reach a predetermined end-point, rather than trying to gather information and see if it leads to your suspected conclusion. I don't know what kind of research requirements your PhD program has, haha, but I can't help but wondering if a study and comparison of iconography's uses and effects in different art forms would help you more than setting out to prove comics' interactive superiority.
Regarding your research's intent [to show that comics' use of iconic representations allow a higher degree of involvement than other art-forms]-- that seems very hard to quantify. Wouldn't animated film be able to achieve the same effect? What about video games? I'm a little surprised at the way your research seems to be structured... you seem intent upon finding any evidence possible to reach a predetermined end-point, rather than trying to gather information and see if it leads to your suspected conclusion. I don't know what kind of research requirements your PhD program has, haha, but I can't help but wondering if a study and comparison of iconography's uses and effects in different art forms would help you more than setting out to prove comics' interactive superiority.