Page 33, Vol I., Issue 13

"What is poetry?"

What is a comic?

Let me cheat by inserting a little bit of dialog I wrote for a classical civilization class. It assumes you're familiar with the typical pattern a Socratic dialog follows, but it should make sense anyway.

The following fragment was recently found in some Greek ruins near Athens. It is believed to be an authentic Socratic dialog because it fails to find a satisfactory end and because it slightly misrepresents the position of the defendant, in this case Scott McCloud, who somehow went back in time to discuss this with Socrates. (Ie, apologies to Plato, Socrates, and Scott McCloud...)

Soc: I hear you are writing a paper.
Scott: Yes, I am discussing comic strips and comic books, which I simply refer to as comics, as a form of art.
Soc: I see, this is very interesting. You must be an expert.
Scott: I believe I am, yes.
Soc: You must be aware that you need a definition for your subject, so that people will know what you are discussing.
Scott: Certainly, I already have such a definition.
Soc: Then, young man, will you please describe for me what a comic is? For I wish these things to be clear.
Scott: Certainly, I will. Will Eisner described comics as sequential art. I believe that is a satisfactory definition.
Soc: Let me ask you a question that may not appear related, then. Is a dramatic performance art?
Scott: Yes, but I am confused as to why you ask
Soc: And is not music also art?
Scott: Yes, certainly.
Soc: And novel writing, is that also art?
Scott: Yes, all these are art?
Soc: if this is so, then is a series of songs sung in a specific order a comic? Or perhaps a musical play, which is a sequence of songs and acted text, is that a comic?
Scott: I can see what you mean, dear Socrates. Of course this is not the case. I must amend my definition then, for while those are sequential art, they are certainly not comics. Sequential visual art is a more precise definition of comics.
Soc: I see. Excuse my ignorance, for I am sure this is a ridiculous question, but is a Bugs Bunny cartoon a comic?
Scott: Certainly not! Why do you ask?
Soc: What about the film Lawrence of Arabia?
Scott: Not at all!
Soc: Are not both cartoons and flims sequences of visual art displayed in rapid fashion?
Scott: This is true. I can see that again my definition is not precise.
Soc: Yes, how are films and comics different from each other?
Scott: Well, films show images in the same spot, one image at a time, while comics show them in spatially separated format. So I suppose the definition could be refined to say juxtaposed sequential visual art.
Soc: Now I have another question, that is perhaps peevish of me, but regarding the term art, doesn’t that imply a certain value judgement? Or at least a redundancy, since you are, after all, describing comics as a type of art.
Scott: Very well, Socrates, I will accommodate you I will use the term “static images” instead of “art.”
Soc: So comics are juxtaposed sequential static images?
Scott: Yes, I believe that is a good definition.
Soc: What if I were to take a stack of photographs and shuffle them together randomly, the place them in an even row on a table. Would that be a comic?
Scott: No, I don’t see why that would be described as a comic.
Soc: They are static images in a spatially juxtaposed sequence, are they not?
Scott: I see. I suppose they are.
Soc: Can you distinguish the two, then?
Scott: I believe I can. What if we call comics juxtaposed static images in deliberate sequence?
Soc: That is much better, I’m sure that will stand up.
Scott: Yes, I believe so as well.
Soc: Yet, I do have another troubling thought.
Scott: what would that be, friend Socrates?
Soc: Words.
Scott: Words? Many comics have words, but they do not necessarily have words to be comics.
Soc: Aren’t letters static images?
Scott: I suppose they are.
Soc: And aren’t letters, juxtaposed spatially in deliberate sequence, used to make words?
Scott: Again, I see you are right.
Soc: Then why is a comic any different from a word?
Scott: Comics are juxtaposed pictorial and other static images in deliberate sequence.
Soc: I wonder at your insistence on using the term static.
Scott: Why so?
Soc: The Internet has introduced some interesting media. One comic often praised is Argon Zark, which features some animated panels.
Scott: I see. Yes, I’ve enjoyed that comic, and there are many others like it. I suppose removing the word static would purify the definition.
Soc: Finally I believe we have a definition we can agree upon. Only, there is one more problem.
Scott: What problem is that?
Soc: Would you call Gary Larson’s “Far Side” or Bill Keene’s “Family Circus” comics?
Scott: Certainly!
Soc: Yet, these comics are not sequential. So you can see that your definition is still a failure...

Yeah, we could go on there, but we won't.

As you can see, defining comics isn't an easy thing to do. Does it have to be funny? Does it have to have superheroes? Does the target audience have to be children? Do they have a specific layout?

Part of the reason I used Scott McCloud in my dialog is because he has written a lot about this. However, the other reason is that he is looking at various ways of going beyond the traditional forms of comics. He gets a lot of flak for it. And, I suspect, like most art, most of the early experiments with form across the web will probably be terrible. However, there's room to do great things there as well.

In the end, I suspect that the only real way to define comics is to say they're storytelling with pictures. You could maybe simplify that to visual storytelling. But as the dialog shows, there are problems with this definition. There's a lot of crossover.

Does it really matter though? In some ways, no. Who cares if you can draw solid lines around it? In fact, many would say it's better the more indistinct those boundaries are. However, in the apologetic sense, it is crucial. There is no essential difference between some universally recognized "fine art" and some comics. So why are so many people hung up on it?

Discuss it in our forums.

Written by SaintEhlers on April 24th, 2006