Comics are both an adults and a children's media as they appeal to both in different ways. The beauty of comics is that they cater to a wide range of audiences due to the linking of words and images that helps to create a simplistic on one level and and complex story on another. The reason a comic can be both simple and complex is because it relies heavily on the interpretation of the reader. In the case of Tintin the story is essentially a timeless one - Hero conquering Villain. A child will look at the images in a comic and in the case of Tintin will see a man and his dog on a quest fighting the bad guy. The words spoken by the characters in the comic will further help to illustrate this story.
In regards to an adult, experience and knowledge of places and events will help the reader to understand the deeper meaning behind the text and images. As Farr (1999) points out 'As in the best of fiction the stories were anchored firmly in fact.' As in the case of Herge's 'The Blue Lotus' which is the story of how Tintin goes to Shanghai to find a drug lord dealing in Opium, the title itself show's Herge's basis in fact as the name given to the comic is a well known opium den in Shanghai. The use of Chinese images and especially the use of meaningful Chinese phrases depicted in 'The Blue Lotus' allows the adult reader to understand Herge's desire to create an awareness and tolerance of the Chinese culture.
As an art form comics are becoming more accepted as they primarily use images in order to convey meaning and ideas within a story. For this reason also comics are clearly a literary genre as text is used in order to complement these images. The ideas within the story are given greater importance by the nature and complexity of the images being depicted and therefore the value of this form of art is now gaining more recognition.
As the saying goes 'a picture conveys a thousand words', so true for comics as the images are expressed in minute detail in order to have impact and to underline the basis in reality . 'Like film, television and the Internet, comics systematically combine words and pictures' (Varnum (2001). The images help to create a deeper level of understanding for the reader by depicting the views and sentiments of the author and the artist.
I remain somewhat loathe to recognise comic-books as an art form just yet. Certainly though, Tintin is of a different calibre in its ability to make a political allegory of its otherwise conventional storytelling, leagues above the ‘moral-dilemmas’ of Marvel’s sexualised super-men and women. Comic books may, like other media, ‘systematically combine words and pictures’ so strengthening the conveyance of whatever message. But that’s just where and why comic books have failed to be a part of any sort of ‘scholarly’ discourse, because they have infantilized what is potentially a more powerful and enveloping script than mere words alone (which isn’t to say anything against literature; of course not!). With Marvel as prime example, comic books rely too heavily on the visual (which is why Hollywood’s so addicted; it’s like having pre-packaged storyboards, not to mention the existing fan-bases promising profit even before screen-tests or release-dates), and simply perpetuate pop-celebrity-culture in illustrating perfectly formed, scantily clad gods into exploitative ‘pulp’ narratives. More often than not these types of comic-books, the more popular because of the unadulterated entertainment value they offer, are gratuitous indulgences of fan-boy fetish.
ReplyDeleteBack to Tintin though; Herge is refreshingly offering more than a bright-eyed bushy-tailed and ever-so-British superhero, as has already been discussed. But ‘art-form’? Maybe if the visual style was more nuanced, offering a substantiating or complimentary aesthetic parallel to the text; but I find it to be a little basic, perhaps intentionally linear though, seeing as Herge sought to explore the genre and try new things and perhaps didn't want to be too groundbreaking without respecting established formulas (and consequently, target audiences). Frank Miller for example, though perhaps not having yet elevated his work to an ‘art-form’, has nonetheless built up a following by preaching, both through subject matter and a stark more stripped-down visual style, a sort of brutal nihilism. A little irresponsible yes, but what he’s doing is commenting on the ‘pulp’ narratives which have shaped the genre, exaggerating these to a very knowing, intensely explicit and therefore less desensitizing level; which isn’t to say his graphic depictions are responsible, only that he’s to be commended on his efforts to inject some gritty reality into his work. Just compare the Batman of yesterday with Millers recent revision of the franchise and you’ll see how strongly cynical he is of how the genre has been treated.
Personally, ‘comic-books’ that I’ve seen and almost regarded as art come from the work of Australian illustrator Shaun Tan, because they’re such un-comic book comic books; it’s more that Tan’s taken the ‘strip’ format and for each frame has used a canvas that he’s spent god knows how long on. They’re not just visually alluring either, but in subject matter range with anything from depression to immigration, his imagery externalizing the emotional landscapes of his characters rather than serving the progression of his narratives, though they do this also. Tan’s contributions to the genre are indispensably progressive, and it would do well to take note.
Good work Rizwana and thanks for your great comment Sam.
ReplyDeleteRizwana,
make sure you clearly express your own personal opinion, while at the same time referring to critcal readings - a pretty good job here but I think you could have taken it further.
Some thoughts/ questions spring to mind:
Can images alone be literature?
Can text alone be an art form?
Does it matter how long an impage takes to be drawn? techniques used? Uniqueness of ideas/ images/ text? size?
Hey Rizwana,
ReplyDeletegood stuff here! i enjoyed your analysis, and i definitely agree with you that "comics...cater to a wide range of audiences..." and it was good to see that you showd answers from different points of views.
awesome work!
No, I don't think it matters how long an illustrator has spent on a particular image, though it’s a question of the precarious balance of quality and quantity in any work. Perhaps then, time spent on an image is completely relative to the author’s objective, which might for example stylistically necessitate intentionally low production-value or call for painstaking attention to detail, where a single panel takes a matter of hours (days?) to finish; whatever visual nuances align with the illustrators aims. This consequently leaves us wondering just how big a role the visual has in the reading of comic-books. If the text suffices as a narrative vehicle and convinces a reader enough of situations/characters, then are alluring visuals a condescending or even aggressive bid for attention? It might be a matter of preference, a reader’s taste for ‘pretty pictures’ not necessarily signifying low reading levels. Additionally, it’s this visual element which separates comic-books from other literatures, so an appreciation of a particular author will have as much to do with that author /illustrator’s distinct visual style as it does with their narrative, characterization, setting, etc.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't be quite so harsh on the visual aspect of comics.
ReplyDeleteSexiness is a useful element in imagery.
It carries that same simplicity as standardized antagonism in written stories.
When criticizing Tintin, I found it useful to remember a few things to better understand what I mightn't like about it:
-This comic started off in the local funny papers before taking off.
-Herge would've had his work cut out for him, doing both the art and the writing. It was only later, following Tintin's success he was able to put together an art staff.
-This was all done circa the 1940's.
Plot holes and deus ex machinas weren't major concerns of people in trenches or waiting in line for provisions.
I agree largely with what you've said otherwise, though :]
Rizwana hinted at the depth in Tintin, which I can see.
I wouldn't say it's profound, but I do feel an honesty to the work in its exploration of places.
Hey everyone
ReplyDeleteThank you for the comments, sorry I hadn't responded to them till now. In response to Esther's questions I do think images alone can be literature. A definition of Literature that I quite agree with is 'Broadly speaking, "literature" is used to describe anything from creative writing to more technical or scientific works, but the term is most commonly used to refer to works of the creative imagination, including works of poetry, drama, fiction, and nonfiction.' (Lombardi E 2010). Lombardi refers to 'works of the creative imagination' I definitely believe that this can refer to art as it is not only imaginative but can also tell a story or at least elicit a response for the viewer which I think is one of the main goals of literature - to bring an idea or story to the viewer/readers attention.
Sam - although I may not agree with you in terms of whether comic books are art, I can understand your point of view and I thoroughly enjoyed reading your comment.
Adder - your comment definitely gave me food for thought it is hard to read 'The Blue Lotus' now and remember it was actually written a few decades ago, you have definitely made some good points.
Harri - thanks I really enjoy reading your posts too :)
Nice commentary everybody! Keep it up :)
ReplyDelete