In a nice coincidence David Apatoff has posted his own thoughts on child art. Unlike Cohn, Apatoff come at the subject from an "art" perceptive, but also feels it has a lot to offer that "adult" art can't. At the same time he points out that the differences in child art and "adult" art isn't that child art is more "natural" but that a child's brain hasn't fully developed.
The first draft of my next large scale post is almost done, but I probably won't be able to start editing it for a week. Tomorrow I'm having some oral surgery, and I don't think my head will be clear enough for editing for a bit. Anyway the next post is a look at the different art styles used in comics and the stroytelling approaches that tend to be used with them.
Special attention will be paid to highly naturalistic (or realistic or whatever you want to call it.) art and way it has failed to gain as much praise or attention (and indeed is sometime vilified.) as other styles amongst the alternative comic crowd, and whether this style is facing extinction or a rebirth.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Politics and Psychology
Friday, June 1, 2007
More on Art Vs Language
I didn't intend to come back to this subject, at least not right away, but today Cohn has made a point that sparked my interest. Cohn mentions a study that has found that South African children often misinterpret "naturalistic" details in western drawings like perspective, and shading. However as they get older the children either learn or grow accustomed to these aspects and the amount of misinterpretation drops.
On this he concludes that “realistic” drawings (Or as he calls them iconic drawings.) are not the "natural" ways human were wired to draw. And implies that we shouldn’t draw this way.
This seems very shaky to me, children don't know how to read or write and must be taught it. Writing isn't even natural to humans, many tribes, across the world, some dating back tens of thousands of years, don't write, does this mean we should abandon writing? Even when children first lean to speak they don't know every word, and some larger ones can take them a long time to learn and remember, should we abandon these words? I say we shouldn’t and nor should we abandon "naturalistic" drawing techniques in comics, they have an important place in it's history and in it's future, but more on that next time.
Addition: Cohn has updated his entry to say that he is not speaking out against the use of perspective, that he's "just analyzing". The problem is that when you take all of his work into account his saying that: "our minds' graphic system is not predisposed to it." comes off not as an unbiased assessment, but one of condemnation.
Also, the use of one scientist’s observation of children in one culture to make a sweeping judgment about how all adult brains are wired is a braking of the scientific method. I do not claim to know what is inherent in human mind and I’m wary of those who do; and given the effects of culture on humans such claim seems even weaker. Obviously the problem of culture is why the study, and Cohn focus on children, but even by 5 their native culture could have already colored how these children expect art to be.
At the end is a quest for the "natural way" humans draw even worth it? All groups of people found in the world have a culture and this brings with it the need to pass down information, learning, which requires both instruction and exposure, can any drawings we find ever be considered natural?
On this he concludes that “realistic” drawings (Or as he calls them iconic drawings.) are not the "natural" ways human were wired to draw. And implies that we shouldn’t draw this way.
This seems very shaky to me, children don't know how to read or write and must be taught it. Writing isn't even natural to humans, many tribes, across the world, some dating back tens of thousands of years, don't write, does this mean we should abandon writing? Even when children first lean to speak they don't know every word, and some larger ones can take them a long time to learn and remember, should we abandon these words? I say we shouldn’t and nor should we abandon "naturalistic" drawing techniques in comics, they have an important place in it's history and in it's future, but more on that next time.
Addition: Cohn has updated his entry to say that he is not speaking out against the use of perspective, that he's "just analyzing". The problem is that when you take all of his work into account his saying that: "our minds' graphic system is not predisposed to it." comes off not as an unbiased assessment, but one of condemnation.
Also, the use of one scientist’s observation of children in one culture to make a sweeping judgment about how all adult brains are wired is a braking of the scientific method. I do not claim to know what is inherent in human mind and I’m wary of those who do; and given the effects of culture on humans such claim seems even weaker. Obviously the problem of culture is why the study, and Cohn focus on children, but even by 5 their native culture could have already colored how these children expect art to be.
At the end is a quest for the "natural way" humans draw even worth it? All groups of people found in the world have a culture and this brings with it the need to pass down information, learning, which requires both instruction and exposure, can any drawings we find ever be considered natural?
Friday, May 25, 2007
The folly of "Art vs. language"
Hello, my name is Nathan Sandler and on this blog I'll be posting my musings on politics, culture and comics, which is what my first post is on.
The Folly of "Art vs. language"
I would like to say right off the top that I have nothing but respect and admiration for Neil Cohn and his thought provoking work, but I do disagree with him on what seem to be the fundamental levels of his theories. At the heart of this is his argument that what we see in comics is a language not art, now this is a vast simplification of his ideas it does provide us with a staring point.
The Folly of "Art vs. language"
I would like to say right off the top that I have nothing but respect and admiration for Neil Cohn and his thought provoking work, but I do disagree with him on what seem to be the fundamental levels of his theories. At the heart of this is his argument that what we see in comics is a language not art, now this is a vast simplification of his ideas it does provide us with a staring point.
What is art?
A tricky question but if we are arguing whether or not something is art it's one you have to tackle sooner or later. Lets start with a definition from Webster, first we see that there are many definitions of art, we shall start with the noun: “skill acquired by experience, study, or observation”* (the example here is worth pointing out: the art of making friends) art may also be an adjective: “produced as an artistic effort or for decorative purposes.”* Not the most technical of definitions but it gives something to start with. The simple fact is postmodernism and Dadaism have been trying to get people to question what constitutes art since the thirties, and in doing so have rendered Cohn's statement that: "Likewise, not all statues and things painted are considered "art" by definition, only the ones that meet certain individual and cultural qualifications to be included in that category."** a moot point.
In a way Cohn is right, comics will probably never be a medium, like oil panting, were it's tend to be expected that every thing made in it is "Art" to one degree or another by the general public it'll be closer to TV in that it will always be seen as "just a mass medium" and thus expected to put out stuff purely on the lower end of "culture " but can on rare occasions may make something that is worthwhile. What Cohn seems to be taking about in his "art vs. language" arguments is the act of drawing and the traditional skills that one is believed to need to have in order to be considered talented in the field of making the pictures in comics. In time this will raise more questions, but for know lets look at the second part of the art language divided.
In a way Cohn is right, comics will probably never be a medium, like oil panting, were it's tend to be expected that every thing made in it is "Art" to one degree or another by the general public it'll be closer to TV in that it will always be seen as "just a mass medium" and thus expected to put out stuff purely on the lower end of "culture " but can on rare occasions may make something that is worthwhile. What Cohn seems to be taking about in his "art vs. language" arguments is the act of drawing and the traditional skills that one is believed to need to have in order to be considered talented in the field of making the pictures in comics. In time this will raise more questions, but for know lets look at the second part of the art language divided.
What is language?
Again let’s start with Webster: "systematic means of communicating ideas or feelings by the use of conventionalized signs, sounds, gestures, or marks having understood meanings"* about as accurate as we need right now. Now, Colon states that comics are a "visual language" but what makes that different from a non-visual language? Most languages are sound based so that's easy, but what about sign language isn't that a visual language? Is their not a term that suits what is done in comics far better than language? I'd say there is and that term is writing. This is a subtle but important distinction; for one not all human cultures have a written language but all speak a language.
This distinction brings up that writing is a visible and thus visual language. Here's were things get tricky because when someone writes using a pen or pencil or other handwriting tool they are making a visual mark and a certain amount of "cultural qualifications" are excepted to be met, in other words when they are handwriting they are drawing. If you look at handwriting as drawing and therefore compatible with drawing comics a few new qualifications for a good comic drawing appear then if you just deal with the parts of language found in both spoken and written forms of language; this gives raise to one of the most important comparison to be made in between languages and good comic drawing, legibility.
A well made sentence conveying the most insightful thoughts is worthless if you can't make out what's being said. In a rare defense of Liefeld Cohn states: "that Liefeld is undeniably graphically fluent"*** defending the individual drawings (words) but ignoring Liefeld's panel layouts (grammar) which to put it simply are atrocious. (That’s another story for another time.) As for Mr. Liefeld's "handwrittening" to put it simply, it's bad. I have hard time figuring out where characters are suppose to be, and when not in costume who's suppose to be who, and only the broadest of body language and facial expressions are used to tell me what the characters are feeling.
This distinction brings up that writing is a visible and thus visual language. Here's were things get tricky because when someone writes using a pen or pencil or other handwriting tool they are making a visual mark and a certain amount of "cultural qualifications" are excepted to be met, in other words when they are handwriting they are drawing. If you look at handwriting as drawing and therefore compatible with drawing comics a few new qualifications for a good comic drawing appear then if you just deal with the parts of language found in both spoken and written forms of language; this gives raise to one of the most important comparison to be made in between languages and good comic drawing, legibility.
A well made sentence conveying the most insightful thoughts is worthless if you can't make out what's being said. In a rare defense of Liefeld Cohn states: "that Liefeld is undeniably graphically fluent"*** defending the individual drawings (words) but ignoring Liefeld's panel layouts (grammar) which to put it simply are atrocious. (That’s another story for another time.) As for Mr. Liefeld's "handwrittening" to put it simply, it's bad. I have hard time figuring out where characters are suppose to be, and when not in costume who's suppose to be who, and only the broadest of body language and facial expressions are used to tell me what the characters are feeling.
Style
Cohn believes a lack of a single "look" is hurting American comics from exploiting the fact that its a language, which intently uses a set sounds or symbols to convey meaning. This view tends to isolate Cohn, as many comic fans and creators tend to either prefer naturalistic art or individual styles. Cohn states that this stops comics from truly reaching their potential by hurting the language side of comics in favor of the art side. First their is nothing in art that says that one must be 100% original in every aspect of it, that is an aspect introduced by modernism. For years each culture's art has had a standard template for how certain things look, in the case of the western world that look has largely been a naturalistic centered one for a long time, but other culture employ a more stylized look.
Art gives comics more ways to communicate ideas then a simple language based approach has to offer. Aspects like composition, lighting and others can all help tell the story just as much as a standardized symbol for sadness can. These aspects that art gives comics are not as easily picked up on as the more symbolic language-like parts, and therefore take greater time to both learn and master, but this has precedent,not in spoken langue but in written langue. most written languages are made up of easily duplicated symbols like English, others like Chinese calligraphy take years to master as changes such as line thickness contribute to the symbol, rather then just the basic shape.
This leads into the next subject, typography. in stating that a single look make comics more popular Cohn points to manga, ignoring for a second the details of each Mangaka’s look one must admit their are at least a few that different sub-styles or typographies in manga, the style used in most Shonen (EX: Naruto) the one used in Shojo (Ex: Fruit Basket) and a far more naturalistic one (EX: Sanctuary). Add to this fact that deviations in anything handmade (everyone has unique handwriting.) so that even when working in the same style on the same character the natural impulse is for some from of an individual style to show up. For example look at these two stills done by two different artists from a Bugs Bunny cartoon directed by Bob Clampett:****
Art gives comics more ways to communicate ideas then a simple language based approach has to offer. Aspects like composition, lighting and others can all help tell the story just as much as a standardized symbol for sadness can. These aspects that art gives comics are not as easily picked up on as the more symbolic language-like parts, and therefore take greater time to both learn and master, but this has precedent,not in spoken langue but in written langue. most written languages are made up of easily duplicated symbols like English, others like Chinese calligraphy take years to master as changes such as line thickness contribute to the symbol, rather then just the basic shape.
This leads into the next subject, typography. in stating that a single look make comics more popular Cohn points to manga, ignoring for a second the details of each Mangaka’s look one must admit their are at least a few that different sub-styles or typographies in manga, the style used in most Shonen (EX: Naruto) the one used in Shojo (Ex: Fruit Basket) and a far more naturalistic one (EX: Sanctuary). Add to this fact that deviations in anything handmade (everyone has unique handwriting.) so that even when working in the same style on the same character the natural impulse is for some from of an individual style to show up. For example look at these two stills done by two different artists from a Bugs Bunny cartoon directed by Bob Clampett:****
Hieroglyphs
A symbolic and graphic froms of writing have already been devolved, hieroglyphs, and logograms in general. If one completely standardized the graphic depictions of objects and ideas in comics and simplified them so they would be easy to "read" then hieroglyphs is what one ends up. Now there is nothing wrong with this, expect it almost completely removes drawing from the equation, To me this is a great shame, one of the things that can get people to want to read or make comics is that they enjoy looking at or making drawings, and with that gone why not simply use the written language that's already available?
Also, a reliance on symbols can strip a work of its subtlety and ruin suspension of disbelief, having a villain twirl a handlebar moustache will tell your audience that this is a bad man, but will probably also leave them rolling their eyes at the clicheness of it, and instead of just "going along with it" many will be thinking abut how few people have handlebar moustaches, much less go around twirling them. (Though I do admit I am tempted to grow one just so I can twirl at the right moment, say some asks me about what I'm thinking I can answer sinisterly "nothing." well twirling it, and then maybe chuckle, yeah, that'd be awesome.)
Even symbols that we are used and accepted might be thrown out if one is trying for subtlety. The manga and anime "sweat drop" for example is the equivalent of an author writing "Joe was annoyed" well it clearly tells the reader what is going on it does so in such an unrealistic manner that it draws attention to the fact that it is written, under other circumstances that might be excused, but the lack of complexities or nuance in the sentence leaves the whole thing as an unnecessary braking of storytelling’s number one rule, "show don't tell".
The visual symbols do seem easier for most people to accept then such poor prose and that would prove an interesting avenue of investigation but the point I'm making is that an attempt to "purge" (as it were) comics of its art side and codify a "language" for it does not free the medium but shackles it to being little more than a secondary version of the written language already in place instead of being an entity in and of itself.
Also, a reliance on symbols can strip a work of its subtlety and ruin suspension of disbelief, having a villain twirl a handlebar moustache will tell your audience that this is a bad man, but will probably also leave them rolling their eyes at the clicheness of it, and instead of just "going along with it" many will be thinking abut how few people have handlebar moustaches, much less go around twirling them. (Though I do admit I am tempted to grow one just so I can twirl at the right moment, say some asks me about what I'm thinking I can answer sinisterly "nothing." well twirling it, and then maybe chuckle, yeah, that'd be awesome.)
Even symbols that we are used and accepted might be thrown out if one is trying for subtlety. The manga and anime "sweat drop" for example is the equivalent of an author writing "Joe was annoyed" well it clearly tells the reader what is going on it does so in such an unrealistic manner that it draws attention to the fact that it is written, under other circumstances that might be excused, but the lack of complexities or nuance in the sentence leaves the whole thing as an unnecessary braking of storytelling’s number one rule, "show don't tell".
The visual symbols do seem easier for most people to accept then such poor prose and that would prove an interesting avenue of investigation but the point I'm making is that an attempt to "purge" (as it were) comics of its art side and codify a "language" for it does not free the medium but shackles it to being little more than a secondary version of the written language already in place instead of being an entity in and of itself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)