Do you think comics are a children's or adult genre/media?
I strongly feel this depends on both the content and the individual. For example, some comics are clearly aimed at a younger audience, perhaps between ages 7-10+, others hold a content which may not be considered suitable for younger audiences, or may have symbolism or vocabulary not easily understood by younger audiences. Just as one could say that not all cartoons are aimed at a particular age bracket. Some can be enjoyed by both young children, teenagers, and adults, I'm sure. Take for example the many and varied Marvel and DC comic series, enjoyed the world over by all ages. I also think it depends on the individual, their personal taste, education, interests, etc. For example, last year I studied 3D animation, and in doing so, I saw many animated children's films, and I was surrounded by people who could enjoy them too. We did not only watch them to study the art, but also because we could enjoy the movies, despite the fact they were for younger people. In this situation, environment plays a key role, because a person can be influenced by their environment, for example I felt the need to watch these pieces because they were related to what I was studying and surrounded by, and I was also being told they were good films, and there was no stigma around this, where there probably would be outside of the situation. So I think a person could be influenced by this too. If they are criticized for reading comics because they are "for kids" then depending on the individual this could change their opinion or whatever. If they were studying to become an illustrator for example in an unrelated field, they may pick up comic book reading as first a study, then out of shear enjoyment. I truly think it varies, but I certainly don't feel they are either for children or adults, and can be enjoyed regardless of any other contributing factors.
How does Farr (1991) justify Tintin's appeal to adults?
In the two following quotes, I will summarise my ideas of ways in which these extracts could or can appeal to "adults" in terms of Tintin, and also Hergé himself as the author, because of course the article is about Hergé and Tintin as an extension of Hergé, and I see Tintin and his exploits as a vehicle for Hergé to communicate his values and ideologies through. While not all of these were pleasant, for example his racism which was highly acceptable and common in the day, he has universally recognisable likeable qualities which therefore rub off onto the Tintin character and his adventures.
“highly gifted illustrator with a vivid, child-like imagination and a deep curiosity in the world around him. He may have aspired to be a dashing foreign correspondent when he started at Le XXe Siecle, a Belgian catholic daily, as a general dog’s body. But very soon his talent as an illustrator became apparent, he was put to work drawing for different parts of the newspaper…”
• Appeals to the nostalgia in the adult in mentioning his retained child-like imagination – something that often is lost as we get older, so produces an admiration as well as a sub-conscious envy. Hergé retained something that is generally lost on most others. This makes him quite unique – another quality we all wish to have. This same nostalgia, depending on the reader, could be pushed on to Tintin comics, and memories of reading them as a child, enthralled and the, now lost, childhood imagination whirring.
• Similarities between Tintin and Hergé, in their curiousity and child-like qualities, thus the reader, if they are firmilar with Tintin comics, will subconsciously identify Hergé as being Tintin. Hergé's likable qualities become Tintin's likable qualities, and Tintin is seen as being a character with only likable qualities, so while no negativity is brought to light, Hergé is too.
• Also appeals to reality, while subjective, it is still universal. Everyone has dreams, but reality often prevents their ambitions from being realised. Hergé is portrayed as wanting to be a renowned reporter, but could only get a job as a “general dogs body,” a cog in the works, etc. adults can identify with this, as feelings of obsoleteness in a large work place are common. However, Hergé got what is fantasised about too often, he was discovered for something he was naturally brilliant at, and was given further opportunities as a result. He excelled, and was recognised for his natural talent. Again, another feature we wish to identify with.
“rather than becoming a reporter himself, circumstances led Hergé to create one that was to become better known than any. Instead of being dispatched to chronicle world events and upheavals, he sent Tintin Hergé, meanwhile remed an extraordinarily well informed armchair traveller until much later in life, when Tintin having completed most of his travels, he himself embarked on a series of trips abroad.”
• Created something that was more successful than any other of it’s class could be (reporter) – reflects on creation, talent, success of own children? Being the best, if not better.
• The universal want to travel, to explore and see the world, - Hergé did this from the comfort of home (“armchair traveller”)
• He then does have the ability to travel to far reaches of the world, assumably due to his success, an enviable accomplishment, which hinges on the mentioned universal yearning to explore our world.
According to the second Farr extract (p.50-59), how did Hergé research China for The Blue Lotus?
Initially, Hergé portrayed the Chinese as cruel, ponytail-sporting, beady-eyed, inhuman creatures in his Tintin adventure Tintin in the Land of the Soviets which was published in 1930. His twisted image of the race was born from the common stereotype of the day spawn from the Boxer Uprising, and through things such as newspaper cuttings, which were subject to this also.
It was only through a chance meeting that Hergé realised that the Chinese were not all he had made them out to be. Belgium missionaries had made their way into China, and some of those they had reached had decided to immigrate to Belgium to further their studies. A local Brussels priest, Father Gosset, wrote to Hergé four years after the publishing of Land of the Soviets and asked him not to judge too quickly, and to perhaps further his research through actually meeting a Chinese person.
It was his perfectionism and curiosity that led Hergé to his meeting of Chang Chong-Chen soon after, and the two became fast friends. Chang was a student of the local university, an artist like Hergé, studying sculpture, and the two also happened to be the same age. Chang told him of what China was really like, and Hergé was fascinated. He eagerly absorbed all that Chang had to teach him of China, from it's landscape and architecture, rich culture and history, and it's beautiful art. Hergé soon learned that everything he had been told of the foreign land and it's people prior to his new friendship was wrong, and that they were definitely not all cruel torturers.
A true love and yearning to learn all he could of this country was sparked within Hergé by Chang, a fascination and a friendship which would last a lifetime. Hergé felt a need to correct his wrongs, and also those of the popular opinion. He set out to document all he could of the true China, avidly sketching people and land, and even used Chinese script in the Blue Lotus.
And so Tintin and the Blue Lotus was published, in 1936, only two years after meeting Chang. It took on true political events of the day, between the Japanese and Chinese, such as the Mukden Incident of 1931, and the following Japanese invasion. And so it is, that Hergé pushed his stereotypes onto the Japanese, rather than the Chinese, and that every Chinese character Tintin encounters from there on out, is kind, Europeanised, and free of any previous stereotype, and all Japanese encountered are cruel, inhuman, brewing poisons, and conniving.
Does Varnum (2001) define the difference between a cartoon, comics, and graphic novel?
Varnum and Gibbons, do not define a clear, rigid line between these medium. They speak of the relationship that can be cited in these genres, which cannot be found in the same manner in any other contemporary genre. They lump together comics, graphic novels, comic strips, single panels, and wordless comics and "various other kinds of visual texts" into a single literary family, whilst admitting that none of the members necessarily "share one feature in common with all the others, but any two share common features."
One example of abstract family relation this is the wordless comics of the 1930's which they mention. Due to the lack of captioning, the drawing is symbolic and richly suggestive, using textual signs to communicate certain messages which would otherwise be communicated with written text. Wordless comics still use "picture reading" in the same way a comic strip, single panel, comic book or graphic novel would, in the same way which in these genres the illustrations substitute some of the written exposition or text in comparison to an imageless novel or book.
Another example of this genre's relation to other family members, is the example given is of the classic Warner Brothers' cartoon, Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner, in which "images are more persuasive than words" just as they are in wordless comics, or arguably in any of the other family members. While it is true that music is used in these cartoons, perhaps in the place of dialogue in ways, and this sets it apart from wordless comics, the concentration is undoubtedly on the image and the highly expressive characters which convey emotions, of anger, excitement, joy, amusement, frustration, pain, playfulness, and so on, which viewers can still connect with and identify based on personal experience, making all dialogue that could be inserted obsolete. The dialogue is written in the body language, expressions and actions of the characters, just as it is in wordless comics.
Through this, and many other possible examples which could be given, we can see what Varnum and Gibbons mean when they say that all the members of the "comic" family are just as similar as they are different, and all involve deep and sophisticated picture reading to some extent.
According to Varnum, what distinguishes comics from other media?
Varnum and Gibbons say that comics blend imagery, symbolism, and written text in a manner which can not be found in any other contemporary genres or medium. They discuss that there is a particular "dialect between word and image," that comics involve not only literary reading but also "picture reading" to some extent. They theorise that a great deal of the story and reading in comics is actually in the images, and that these images contain much of the "ideas and values" of the stories, and communicate, and expos much of what is not or does not need to be written.
They cite that the genre is becoming more important, due to our highly visual lifestyle in terms of entertainment in the past century. Perhaps due to the invention of the television, and we are now surrounded by this unity of imagery and sound through new media on a daily basis. The concentration on written text since the invention of the printing press is now shifting. Comics combine both these media in a way which novels don't, and television and movies do not either to the same extent. Comics also use still images, which new media generally doesn't, and the images are illustrations, meaning they can be used in ways that photography or photoessays perhaps couldn't, because it can be an artistic interpretation, represent symbolism or values which may limited by or not be possible to display in a live-action staging, bend the laws of physics, and is not limited by anything except the artist or reader's imagination.
How and why are comics becoming more accepted as an art form? Can/should they be regarded as a literary genre?
I'm not really sure about the first half of this question, because I don't see why they wouldn't be considered an art form or why they wouldn't have been in the past. Perhaps because their style is often very simple and flat (but not always) and highly stylised. I think now they would be more commonly accepted as an art form than say in the 30's or even the 60's, because they were in western society quite thin and flimsy and marketed to children, whereas now we have comics for all ages, as well the larger, longer version, the graphic novel. I think now that the target market has expanded and diversified that they can be appreciated in a different way by more people, and that because of this their true artistic nature is revealed, and their ability to bridge the visual artwork with the narrative art can be observed more frequently.
Personally, I don't see any reason why "comics" wouldn't or shouldn't be accepted as a literary genre, as they are literature, and I'm not really sure how that could be argued, assuming that we are talking about comics like Tintin which contain written literature.
I could see how the argument could take place in relation to "wordless" comics, because they do not contain words obviously, and for that reason rely solely on imagery and art, and thus could be regarded as art or a portfolio or an artistic essay, but the fact that the images are related, in sequence and are a narrative qualify them as a story. A prime and contemporary example of this would have to be the picture book by Shaun Tan entitled The Arrival, a truly beautiful wordless picture book, which tells the tale of a land invaded, and a man's journey to a strange new land. It is presented in typical comic book layout, carefully structure sequential frames, in sepia tone, without any text.
Okay so yes, it is a truly magnificent piece as far as art goes, but is it literature? Truth be told, it is both, and connects with the audience in ways that a piece of stand-alone artwork could not, or a piece of text. It contains all the features of literature, narrative and story, as well as sub-story, symbolism and motifs, point of view, character, plot, setting, and theme. It just communicates in a different way, and I don't think that makes it any less of a story, I was amazed when I read it how a picture-book without any words at all could convey such a deep message. I don't think that anybody who reads it would argue it isn't a piece of literature as much as a piece of art. So yes, I think regardless of what the form of comic, even if it contains not words at all, it should be considered literature, in the very same way a novel with no images at all should be considered a piece of art.
References:
Farr, M. (1991) Tintin: The Complete Companion.
London: John Murray
Varnum, R. & Gibbons, C. (2001) The Language of Comics: word and image.
Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.
Hey, that's a great analysis you got here, but, just to let you know, you don't have to answer every question each week. One or two is preferable, according to Mike. It'll also be less work for you, too. But other than that, I see you're on way to reaching your word count for the first upcoming assessment.
ReplyDeleteHaha, yeah I realized that a little while after posting this. Probably a bit over the 2000 word limit now because of this post. :\ Thanks, Olivia. :)
ReplyDelete