in Writing

Apropos comics, a conversation with Dave Crane

Ever so often I have interesting conversations on twitter – more often than not about comics – that I want to preserve here in their entirety. I’ve tried different formatting in the past, but to avoid the screenplay look in this exchange with improvisational cartoonist Dave Crane, I have edited the tweets down to paragraph text with links to the source marked by hashes (#). as all noteworthy conversations on twitter, this one begins with one party sharing a snarky image:

 

Allan Haverholm: oh man, I missed this by watching only the documentary channel all night 🙁 🙁 🙁 #

Sandslott

Dave Crane: The essence of comics is combining words and pictures in a way that generates friction. (Also — hee! hee!) https://t.co/gpxGVKfj2Q #

AH: Oh no, don’t involve me in hybrid theory! Comics are a visual form, words are only accessories 😛 #

DC: Yeah, but even when there are no words, the lack of words adds to the meaning 😛 (same goes for pictures too) #

AH: Nnnot really. That’s like saying instrumental music “lacks” singing. Or that movies pre-Avatar lacks 3D… #

DC: I don’t buy the avatar/3D argument, that was a tech-driven gimmick. But the music analogy raises an interesting point. #  My thinking was comic readers will typically expect words (90-odd% of comics have them), so choosing not to is deliberate choice # …but music, hmm — traditionally, that’s been more like 50:50, so my argument run aground a bit there. # I’ll have to have a think about that one… # Oh, and yeah, I know there’s a truck-sized gap in any argument based on cultural norms — which we’re all free to ignore 🙂 #

AH: Oh, no need to think about it. I’m right 🙂 # Correction for cockiness: It’s the basis for my work and thinking re: comics, and I’m pretty sure it’s accurate… #

DC: Yep, you are on an entirely valid path, placing the visual elements as central (not that it’s my call whether it’s “valid”) # …and not alone. Lorenzo Mattotti says he “illustrates” the pictures with his words, for example (similar-but-diff emphasis on visuals). #
AH: I think Mattotti is spot on. Images and text both have shortcomings and may supplement each other. #

DC: But there are other approaches too, that take a different emphasis. Nothing inherent in the medium that puts visuals first. # The obvious counter-example is words, but this discussion makes me wonder if there are others e.g. rhythm: # If an abstract sequence is based on, say, rhythm (e.g. alternation between black & white panels, or alternation in shape), # then is that the “visual” element predominating, or a temporal one? (I don’t know the answer to this, btw). # Such an exercise would be limited in appeal to the scholars/wonks like us who do this sort of thing, but that sort of exercise # could also inform more “mainstream” storytelling (i.e. stuff with narrative) — in addition to being complete in its own right # PS: I totally dug your “cocky” reply 😛 🙂 #

AH: But the matter of dominance: yes, comics have historically mostly included text. That doesn’t make the words essential, though # It’s just evidence of the direction taken by early comickers and later generations following their lead. # If we imagine early comics had also allowed simultaneity and non-linear juxtaposition, the image/text balance might differ. #

DC: Agreed. We operate in a cultural context, and can choose to step outside it (and comics’ context is darn weird!). # McCloud’s good ol’ book has that section w histograms, and structural differences between manga and Euro-US tradition #obviousexample #

AH: Because early-1900s comics could have been employed as a modernist art tool. The cubists would have loved it. # In my work and teaching I’ve tried to dismantle comics and throw away non-essential parts. Words went rather early… #
DC: That too is an aesthetic choice: do we throw away non-essential or elaborate it (e.g. rococo architecture)? #
AH: Of course, but for the sake of analysis we cut off parts of the patient to see how long he survives without them 🙂 # If you look at comics as a form rather than genre or medium, it becomes clear that words are absolutely non-essential. # That doesn’t discredit genre work or the works of comics writers. I’m just pointing out a larger territory to explore. #

DC: it’s definitely not a genre. But distinction between form and medium is new to me: thanks. #
AH: Print or Web are media; comics or literature are forms (of art or communication, take your pick). #

The text/linear narrative (+ humour/adventure) aspects af early comics were dictated by the requirement that they entertain. # So if we don’t need text, do we need the linear narrative? If that goes, the space=time convention in comics is meaningless. # But there are still formal elements of comics that hold water without the time/space illusion/sleight of hand — like montage. # (I rant about that here) # Think Kuleshov/Eisenstein montage, pulled out of a cinematic context and into a graphical juxtaposition. # Basically McCloud’s closure concept, with the (optional) temporal aspect peeled away. So we arrive at your rhythm example 😉 # In music and cinema, rhythm is temporal. yet in architecture and pictorial arts it’s considered visual/spatial. # (rhythm is both auditive and visual in cinema of course, oops!) #

And here the line went dead. Dave and I had carried out our discourse over the evening of one weekday and the morning of the next — menial (and paid) work called for our attention and left the thread hanging. Perhaps to be picked back up in the comments section below?

Also on:

Write a Comment

Comment

To respond on your own website, enter the URL of your response which should contain a link to this post's permalink URL. Your response will then appear (possibly after moderation) on this page. Want to update or remove your response? Update or delete your post and re-enter your post's URL again. (Learn More)