Not the David Byrne rock band. Although it's maybe the first time since Byrne's heyday that talking heads are being called interesting and innovative. And it worries me.
Of course, once again I'm talking about web comics.
That bothering to draw things in interesting ways is important is an idea that shouldn't even need defending. After all, ask anyone involved in internet cartooning why it's such a great field, and you'll usually hear some version of "the syndicates are stagnant! They just serve up bland, unfunny, simply-drawn drivel. The internet's the place to see interesting comics these days."
Yet the talking heads march on. And if the mental picture that conjures is incongruous, well, you begin to see my point.
If you've browsed a lot of web-based comics, you know the type I mean. I'm talking about the kind of strip that's basically one panel cut and pasted to look like four panels, where the "artist" has gone in with a graphics program and added different text and different mouths on the heads in each panel, so it looks like four different panels in chronological sequence. If you're really really drunk.
Believe it or not, on multiple occasions I've heard such strips passionately defended as "innovative." Yet, show these same defenders a syndicated strip that's the same pair of heads drawn four times with just the dialogue and mouths varying--which technically would represent considerably MORE effort--and listen to them immediately bash the syndicates for not even trying anymore.
Which would be a valid criticism. But, as Eddie Vedder once caterwauled, "if you hate something, don't you do it too."
The main argument for such strips seems to be that, because they involve a technique that wasn't readily available before the advent of modern graphics technology--unless you had, say, a xerox machine--they're expanding the universe of cartooning. The problem with this reasoning is that real artists have always known how to use new technology to enhance their craft, as opposed to using it as an excuse not to make any effort at all.
A common analysis of comics, to the point of almost being a truism, is that writing is more important than art. It's true, but I think a lot of people misunderstand what that actually means.
Yes, writing is ultimately the number one thing that makes or breaks a comic. It is impossible to salvage a comic whose writing is mediocre, however great the art. On the other hand, great writing will carry mediocre art.
That doesn't mean good art isn't necessary. Take the best writing in the world, and stick awful art on it, and it'll sit there like a bad toupee. It simply won't work.
Comics can't just be writing with pictures added as an afterthought. The whole point of the art form is to make art and writing work together, an inextricably unified whole.
It's true that the art has to serve the writing rather than the reverse. (Although, like any rule, that one probably has exceptions.) But that doesn't mean the art can be an afterthought. It's not an excuse to abandon visual effort. Rather, it means developing a visual style--whatever form, whatever medium, whatever--that best serves the writing and purpose of the work.
It troubles me to see, in some sectors, a rising perception that both the ability to draw, and the act of putting any effort into visuals at all, are outdated. Obviously the mainstream will never accept this idea--it's patently silly and results in some pretty unappealing output. Still, Andy Warhol showed just how far you can take the idea if you package it well.
For my part, I'll continue to believe that both effort and soul are at the core of real artistry, whatever your medium. And if that idea's not modern enough for you, just cut and paste it a few times.
Peace love empathy,
Ozy & Millie™, and everything related, © 1997-2005 D.C. Simpson. Etc. etc. etc.