I’m sad that this is the end to McCloud’s Understanding
Comics. It was a great educational book (especially because it was a comic
book). McCloud’s explanations were clear and he made the “conversation” not
always one sided. He broke the forth wall of his comic book world to address
the reader and a few times interacted (placing the mask on the viewer then
telling them to smile, and if the reader can hear the words he is saying that
they might want to get their ears checked since they shouldn’t be able to hear
him because he was in a comic). I will miss this read (I rented my book so it
will be gone come the end of the semester).
I know that there are a few art students in this class and
it’s always good to get a perspective from people that are not up close to the
subject.
Is McCloud’s definition of art “any human activity which
doesn’t grow out of either of our species two basic instincts: Survival and
Reproduction!” (McCloud, 164, Panel 1) too broad, just right or not enough to explain
the universe that is ART?
And…
McCloud uses the "Six Steps" as a "Circle of Life" for comics and any medium.Will skipping step of
the “Six Steps” affect the quality of the work? Do you have to cover all “Six
Steps” to create ANY work in ANY medium or can you skip steps?
So here’s the thing,
ReplyDeleteThis ‘Six Step’ thing is really problematic for me. As soon as I turned the page and saw the chart I was thinking ‘Oh no. Here we go again’. However, I think this instance is probably McCloud’s biggest misstep in terms of trying to fit art stuff into a particular box (or in this case set of boxes). Pairing that with his crazy-broad definition of art makes this pretty easy to disprove.
I work in the field of architecture, which according to McCloud’s definition is art (No one needs an architect for basic shelter. The house you grew up in wasn’t even designed by an architect 99/100 times). Therefore it should follow this series, right?
Not even close.
First of all, there is no surface understanding of architecture without understanding the ‘craft’ of a building. Buildings are inhabitable, three dimensional objects. Drawing a bad picture of one doesn’t mean you’ve built anything. It’s impossible to actually build a building until you have a THOROUGH understanding of the “structure” of architecture.
Just to provide another example, no architect creates an idiom without first becoming a formal/conceptual innovator. (Also note here that steps 1 and 2 of the Six are totally inextricable in architecture). So the last three are a :very: imprecise mashup of McCloud’s steps.
Bottom line here is: the only way McCloud’s Apple works for architecture is if throw it on the ground and mash it until it’s totally unrecognizeable as an apple.
The other thing I think is worth mentioning from these chapters is the color chapter. This is the part of the book that shows its age the most. Digital printing has transformed affordability/accessibility for color printing.
In 2014, black and white is as much of a choice as color is. There are artists out there who could color Maus in a week, and do a beautiful job. (Just an example, I’m not implying anything about Maus). When I pick up a book now and I see it’s black and white, I immediately look at the art to see how the artist is utilizing the lack of color as a conscious choice. If they’re not, I put it back on the shelf.
PS: Great example of a contemporary black and white work is Jeff Lemire’s ‘The Underwater Welder’.
I've struggled with my own definition of art for years, and I'm still unsure of what art really is. I find McCloud's definition of art acceptable, but somewhat mislead. It's broad enough to contain avant garde performance, but it lacks deeper understanding of art and things that people don't really consider art. To me, art isn't a thing (even though it often takes the form of a thing) or an activity even. Art is the communication between creator and exterior world. Artness isn't a sliding scale, where something can be more art and something else is less art. I think the actual communication itself is art. Of course, in this model, pretty much everything is art, even speaking (and it often is). This may be problematic for some people, but I am very cautious to exclude anything from my understanding of art. McCloud does have a broad understanding that seeks to include many art forms, but I don't think it's broad enough in our increasingly digital world.
ReplyDeleteLastly, I think the 6 step scale is over simplistic. Not all art begins the same way or follows any sequence at all. The greatest art is not art that fulfills all 6 categories. A work of art does not always start with an idea, sometimes its more about its form or surface. Art can be so many things, craft may never even come into play. Ideas and Idiom are in no way separate from form, structure, craft and surface. Ideas can develop with from. Idiom can come with surface. Art making has many more possible methods than something as simple as 6 steps. I think he thinks these 6 steps are the way people learn art, but I think people learn art in many different ways and can create great art without addressing his 6 steps as separate milestones.
I don't think his definition of art is too broad, but I think that the line between "survival and reproduction" and everything else can be murky. For example, cave paintings that date back tens of thousands of years are considered to be the earliest examples of art, something I agree with. But suppose that a particular painting of several hunters taking down a huge animal was drawn not to immortalize the day's hunt, but to instruct young men in the ways of the hunt. Under McCloud's definition of art, that cave painting would not be art because it grew out of the need for food, a vital part of our survival. Or we could take the ancient Egyptian pictographs that he suggested as an early form of comics. One could easily argue that because the pharaohs had an obsession with living after death that some of these pictographs grew out of their need to survive beyond death. Given that context, there's no way to actually classify them. So, no, his definition isn't too broad, it's just that the line is ambiguous at best.
ReplyDeleteAs for the question of whether not skipping a step will impact the quality of the work, I would say as a general rule, no. Obviously, you can't start with the surface because you need something to put the surface on. But I don't think there is a right or wrong place to start other than that, and I don't think there is a right or wrong path to take. As a writer, I have had several instances where I began writing a story and as I continued developing it, I realized that it needed to be conveyed through a different medium in order for it to convey the story I had in mind. Part of creating art, at least in my experience, is letting it lead you from time to time. McCloud notes that no matter how much you try, you can never make art in exactly the way you saw or heard it in your head. Even if you followed that path precisely, it still wouldn't perfectly match your vision. You can start anywhere on that path and you can go either way depending on what you feel your art needs. The only reason quality would be impacted is if you gave up, didn't try your best, or rushed through it.
McCloud's definition of art is serviceable, but that really is all that can be hoped for when it comes to such a complex topic of discussion. There is a lot that exists outside of the bubble of "survival" and "reproduction." For example, creating a film is art, but sitting on your couch watching that film isn't. So context of what involvement one has with what is created between those two spaces if vital in terms of nailing down a true definition of what it is (and which there will likely never truly be).
ReplyDeleteMcCloud's "six steps" concept is also equally broad and complicated, albeit in different ways. Creation of art rarely happens in a linear manner. In the realm of art, steps can be jumbled around, rearranged. Some might be skipped altogether. That being said, the six steps concept is likely most valuable in the creation of a product. Much like a factory line, following the six steps will almost guarantee that you come up with SOMETHING (though it may lack some of the glimmer that accompanies projects that manifest themselves naturally from a single idea or image). The key steps here are purpose and structure. Demographics and presentation.
Now, it just so happens that, though comics can certainly be considered art, it would be very hard to argue that they aren't by-and-large products. Marvel, DC, Image, Vertigo, Dark Horse… these are companies. They produce characters and stories that they market on lunch boxes and t-shirts. For the largest chunk of the comic book market, the ideas of purpose and structure are absolutely relevant and cannot be skipped, though these are the two steps that would most likely be set to the side when it comes to a "true" artistic endeavor (the only purpose comes from the soul; the only structure that which your imagination whims).
McCloud early on makes the argument that comics are art, but he is also still ultimately a businessman. A creative one, yes, but a businessman nonetheless (despite his indie image, he has not shied away from the Big Two, having done work for Superman Adventures - the comic adaption of the late 90's Superman animated series). So in that way, his "six steps" seems to be a combination of both achieving an artistic endeavor, as well as producing an actual, sellable product.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteHey Chris,
DeleteCurious to hear what you think the difference between a piece of art and a product is?
Max
A product is designed to be marketed. It is structured and molded for popular consumption. Art is a more internal creation which exists primarily to explore, with monitory gain set as a secondary goal (if that).
DeleteMaus is a work of art; Art Speigelman uses it as a means of exploring some of the emotional depths uncovered by his father's horrific stories.
In comparison, Todd McFarlane's Spawn was a product. It was designed specifically to spearhead the "edgy" and "gritty" new Image comics imprint. More than that, the comic was designed around marketability. T-shirts, animated television shows, a movie. One of the very first things McFarlane did after producing the comic was create his own toy company to produce Spawn action figures.
Which is fine, that's just two different faces of the industry. But set the two books side-by-side, and it quickly becomes clear which comic is more personal, measured creation, and which is designed to be a mass-consumed product (it ain't the black-and-white Holocaust tale featuring mice and cats).
I too am sad to see this book come to a close. I found it the most informative about comics and it did so in such a simply elegant way, through its own medium. But I was so sad to see it close in such an outdated and broad way that it did.
ReplyDeleteConsidering this book is over 20 years old now, I think everything McCloud states is a bit dated, and overall flawed for that reason. For the question about McCloud’s definition of Art (any human activity which doesn’t grow out of either of our species two basic instincts: Survival and Reproduction), that is one loaded question. I do think his definition of art is too broad, for the obvious reason that under this definition means everything is art. I too struggle with the definition of art, like most art students its something I think about every day. I think that definition often changes depending on context. With that said, simply I think any thing can be art, but not everything is art, including products of artist trade. I agree with Ruthie that it has to communicate something and that communication is a key aspect of most works.
Now McCloud’s “six steps” is a whole other monster. I think it is over simplified and generic, which is never a good combination. McCloud had a goal while writing this book and it was to prove that comics are an art form/ medium. Due to this he made some pretty big leaps in connection other practices with comics, and the “six steps” and his definition of art are examples of this. Artistic process is as unique to the person as their finger prints, for it is another way to say “it’s how one thinks”. Although I do think the steps do work pretty well with comics and the over all development of a comic book artist.
Art is constantly evolving - and along with it - so does its definition. I take McCloud's "six steps" not as a definitive authority on what art is, but rather a guide to give us better understanding (After all, the book is entitled "Understanding Comics" not "The Authoritative Definition of Comics"). The author also addresses whether or not the art is still "art" if one skips a step; he accomplishes this by reminding us that the pioneers of comics were more interested in the idiom rather than surface. So even as the aesthetic quality and production values of comics have progressed, the germination of ideas still holds its place as art.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with McCloud's definition of art. Any activity that involves creativity can be considered art, although many artists also consider their work a matter of survival. Many individuals make a living as an artist and many depend on their work to survive.
ReplyDeleteIn relation to the six steps, I think that some people are naturally inclined artistically and it is possible for them to produce quality work without covering all six steps. The question is whether the inclusion of all six steps could improve the quality of their work even more. I create oil paintings of flowers which I think are beautiful but they may be considered higher quality if I studied all six steps before painting them. In art, quality is usually a matter of personal taste. However, it might also depend on how a person wishes to use it. If you're trying to make a living, or survive, on your art alone then mastering the six steps may benefit you. If you create art for your personal enjoyment, as I do, then an artist may be comfortable with relying on their innate ability. The question is really what we classify as "quality" art? As I said, it's usually a matter of personal taste.
As a general rule of thumb I have pretty much sworn off "Universal Truths". When you try to categorize art in a single sentence its near impossible, I can think of many human endeavors which have nothing to do with art but don't fit within survival or reproduction. However I really do like and understand the 6 steps that he lays out. Not only does it provide a good understanding for comics but they share many similarities to other mediums. As an artist there have been several instances where I have made art but skipped the idea and form stages. This art isn't informative and really lacks the context that well thought out art contains. Art to me is really 70% planning and 30% execution. I do appreciate the 6 step system that McCloud's leaves us with. This formula is a lot more applicable to other types of projects as well. A well structured idea is alot more rewarding than just starting a project.
ReplyDeleteI feel like to say "anything that is not the search for survival or reproduction is art" is fine to a certain, but maybe not defined enough. I liked Chris's example of sitting on the couch watching a movie (or playing video games). It's not something you would do for survival or to reproduce. It's for pleasure. Yes, it's an action that came from somebody else's art, but I feel like for something to be considered art there has to be something new brought to the table. So while it could inspire the viewer to create something new of his own, there are plenty of things in that same sort of vein that are not art. There needs to be some sort of creative expenditure.
ReplyDeleteAs for the 6 steps issue, I agree with most people who have responded and think it's just too oversimplified. The reason I never went to any kind of art classes growing up was because I got so fed up with teachers and whatnot saying, "THIS is the way you do it. Otherwise, you're drawing wrong." I get the concept of growing your skills, but being graded on how similarly I copied the drawings the teacher showed me just felt like it killed all sense of creativity. The 6 steps irked me in the same kind of way. I'll give it some credence in how he brought up that you could do different orders and whatnot, but not a definitive rule, like Scott made it seem. I liked Aaron's words on it: "a guide to give us a better understanding." Spot on.
In terms of the 6 step structure, I say to each his own. No two comic writers work the same just as no two authors write their novels the same. Each person has their own methods of getting to that end product of a complete piece of art. J.K. Rowling has said that she wrote the last chapter of her 'Harry Potter' series first then would jump around writing about different scenes until she reached the moment of completeness. If you go to any library and search creative writing methods or search a similar topic relating to creative writing they will all tell you the same basic structure of writing, however many of them will tell you different ways of creating that structure.
ReplyDeleteI think that for Scott McCloud this method of a 6 step structure works for his understanding of art, but it is certainly not for everyone.
It is my personal thought after reading that section of the book, that Scott McCloud is writing this process as not just a creator of comics, but perhaps more as an editor or publisher of comics. He is someone that has knowledge and understanding of both sides of the comic world coin. He is writing this book as a reader and publisher and not just as a writer/creator of comics.
Also when Scott McCloud opened up chapter nine by asking 'why are comics so important and why do we try to understand them,' it was like he was asking the very question that this class is trying to ask and answer during this semester.
For myself, I find that the answer is very simple regardless of how complex it can be. Comics are important because they are what we love. Perhaps not all people feel the same, but there are enough of us out there that love comics in ways that others just can't wrap their brains around. It is those people that don't understand why we love comics that want to know the answer to those very questions asked at the start of chapter nine. However for those of us that truly love comics it is common sense, it is like asking why a certain color is our favorite color... Sometimes things just are.
I feel like just defining art in general is not the greatest idea in the world. Art is such a freeing, liberating thing, to try and put it in a box is a very dangerous task. You have to be very careful to not step on anybody's toes. Part of me likes the idea of his definition. It's so broad, who could be excluded? And it's true, not many can be. But I find that if I think about it from an artists perspective, not many would be very happy being put under this definition. In one way, the definition kind of belittles art. People think very highly of their art, but here I am sitting on my computer. Not surviving, not reproducing. I'm going to pause for a moment.
ReplyDeleteThere. Was that art? How does that compare to say a Monet, or a Beethoven or a Spiegelman? I find it a little lacking.
I wouldn't say that's art. However, I think this definition is close. I like keeping it broad, but maybe we could add just one word and it might fix things. Howabout: any PROGRESSIVE human activity which doesn’t grow out of either of our species two basic instincts: Survival and Reproduction!”
Because I think art is all about new, making things new, and moving forward. Definitely not always literally. But I think this new word adds a lot. It moves. It breathes. It's not just laziness. I think that fixes things for me, just a little bit at least. But like I said, it's had putting a definition on something like art.
Looking at McCloud's definition of art, it is a broad statement but anyone could look at an object, place, thing, etc., and think it is art. It's an individual's view versus a societal view on what art should or shouldn't be. I have seen plenty of pictures, paintings, landmarks, etc., that someone would view as a piece/work of art, but I would beg to differ. If you look at the definition from an artist, photographer, landscaper, or what have you, they may be upset by McCloud's definition because it is too broad and their views may not reflect this over-arching statement.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the "Six Step" structure you asked about, I believe that every author is different and may not take those same steps through each work they produce. I know I don't! I have my own process that I follow and it may seem unconventional but it works for me. I don't think that skipping a step would make the work weak or affect the quality of work... and to be honest, I don't think many people would notice if a step was skipped!
I like Mike Evans' statement when he reflected on what he was doing in the very moment of responding to this blog... "There. Was that art?". This reflects back to McCloud's example of the cave-dwellers and how they are an art colony simply because they are sitting around doing what seems to be 'nothing'. This counteracts what Mike Evans was saying... It is art, may not be to you but it can be to others.
I like McCloud’s definition of art, and I would say that it is just broad enough. McCloud’s definition includes literarily any form of expression, which I’m inclined to agree with. I also like how he addresses that something’s have varying degrees of art, and something’s have more art than others. He states that the ideal artist is one who won’t alter their expression for money, fame, or sex. The question of which art is best is impossible to answer because it is a matter of opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own.
ReplyDeleteI found McCloud’s six steps a little confusing. On one hand he states no one can say what classifies as art, and on the other he states if you want to make art follow these steps. Someone can obviously create work in a medium by skipping steps, but according to McCloud the form of expression will be lacking. It’s better to look at the six steps as a basic guild line to create “pure art”, which he describes as, “essentially tied to the question of purpose of deciding what you want out of art” (169). I believe McCloud is simply showing as a rule of thumb that expression/art that followed these steps were well received. I don’t believe that he is trying to make rules and regulations for creating, but just giving some suggestions to make art fuller.
As an art student we have had class discussions on what Art is and is not. From the discussions I have found that the definition of what art is is hard to narrow down. The same goes for what art is not.
ReplyDeleteI think that if there are instructions on how to do things you should follow them. The six steps I feel are a good guideline for making comics but different media require different steps. I feel that to make good work you should have a handle of the fundamentals.
There's never going to be an agreeable answer to the question of Art, and I'm not sure the issue with McCloud's definition is one of breadth, necessarily. There are plenty of things, as previously stated, that do not qualify as an artistic endeavor while they also do not pursue the 2 other categories. There's also plenty of cases of making art for survival, in the case of plenty of professional artists, as well as reproduction (assuming sexual desire is based in the same instinctual inclination). The judgement of art is two-fold: the intent of the creator, and the perception of the audience. I am inclined to argue that Art necessitates a thoughtfulness in its creation; however, one may find artistic beauty in what was not intended to be a work of art. I'm not sure if McCloud's definition addresses the duality of an artistic work or not.
ReplyDeleteWill skipping step of the “Six Steps” affect the quality of the work? Do you have to cover all “Six Steps” to create ANY work in ANY medium or can you skip steps?
I think that the question regarding the six steps implies that the 'steps' are a series of conscious decision-making, with which I do not (nor McCloud) agree. I think this may be to the fault of McClouds rhetoric, which is to say that the idea of creating art as a linear "path" of "steps" is misleading. Rather, these six concepts are qualities that are inherent in a work of art. To label them as universal steps disregards the spontaneity of inspiration, as well as the happy accidents of production, and various other, more complex processes.
As the child of two artists, I am well aware of the artistic process, what McCloud calls the Six Steps. However, never has it been so well explained. McCloud's use of icons to show the Six Steps works great and I personally found this part very enjoying. Ironically, by writing a comic book about how comic books can enlighten and illuminate the mind in ways that other mediums of art cannot, McCloud does an excellent job of enlightening the reader to a better understanding of not only comic books, but art itself. I greatly enjoyed this chapter, and plan on using the six steps to guide my own artistic endeavors in the future.
ReplyDeleteMy personal belief is that the absence of any one of the Six Steps can affect the quality of the work. While a work of art is still art even if one of the six steps is skipped, I would argue that the work is not nearly as good or valuable. I believe that the better each of the six steps is developed and is prevalent in the work, the better and more valuable the work of art becomes.
I agree with most of you that the Six Step idea is one of McCloud's (mis-)Steps (sorry, I couldn't resist! ;-)...). In his attempt to be very clear and articulate a medium that had fewer proponents at the time he was writing, he sometimes reduces art and art-making into too narrow a series of choices (and, as you put it, it's not always about choices/ intention at all). I will be very interested to hear your thoughts about this issue and other McCloud points as we begin Maus. Look for more on Maus this evening/ tomorrow, as well as an email with more information about posting guidelines and the like.
ReplyDeleteI’ve always felt that all art is a method of expression so McCloud’s broad definition makes sense to me. I especially appreciated his panels describing the effort of people communicating an idea. Art is a form of communication and the visual representation of communication in action felt like communication inception! McCloud engaged me as a reader because he communicates his ideas about art through the art of comics. His panels on page 196 and 198 are art conveying an idea about art conveying ideas!
ReplyDeleteI don’t have a firm answer the six steps; however, it does remind me of the earlier posts concerning the issues in labeling “high brow” and “low brow” comics. I wonder if authors get labeled as “low brow” because readers assume they have not struggled with all six steps. This may be due to an unfair comparison between different genres. A romance novel may not reflect the process of the six steps to a reader who prefers to read Tolkien. Ultimately, the author is the only one who knows how many “steps” they have completed and the reader is left to decipher what the author is trying to communicate through their art.
The idea of art being anything not related to reproduction or survival doesn’t apply perfectly to everything. I can agree that anything involving entertainment can be considered art because it is created from a person’s ideas for the sole purpose of being enjoyed by themselves and others but there are other things that don’t seem to fit into the realm of art just right. Science and math for instance or anything involving research of the world is widely different from movies or comic books that it’s hard to see how they could be related on an artistic level. Art is one of those human concepts that is too abstract to have a firm definition outside of what we feel is obviously art.
ReplyDeleteI honestly find that the whole step-by-step approach in any kind of art hampers more than helps most people and that includes McCloud’s Six Steps. If someone outlines that something has to be done a certain way especially with young or inexperienced artists then they will believe that is the only way to create their own comic book. When they find they can’t meet all the steps as expected they begin to wonder if they’re a failure and may give up. I’ve struggled with this a lot in writing. I’ve tried to copy the same methods of experienced writers in the hopes of somehow using the right approach only to find myself highly disinterested in my work and slowly abandon it.
The only step that matters is the idea. With the idea the artist already knows what they want, it’s just a matter of motivation and dedication – something that I think all artists suffer a lack of at some point. If they are willing to cultivate the idea and see it through even when it twists, turns, and changes in ways that contradict what they originally planned then they’re on the right track. If the Six Steps or the like works for the artist then that’s fine but if it doesn’t it shouldn’t be anything to worry about. Rather they should take the time to consider what works best for them than what works best for the experts.
I have always been fascinated with art. Whether its paintings, books, anything that has an artistic style is something that I want to see. However, in the years I have seen and studied art, I really do not believe that art can have a real definition. McCloud’s definition is close, but I still do not believe art can be defined. Art is something that can appeal to the viewer in anyway. It is constantly evolving and will continue to evolve as long as everyone has a different taste of their own. If art was to have a definition of its own, then it would have to include everyone’s sense of interest. And that’s nearly, if not, impossible. I believe it’s just best for people to have their own definition of art. McCloud’s ‘Six Steps’ can also be skipped with any form of art in any medium. The Six Steps are more like guidelines than actual rules anyway. They do point out some interesting facts about the steps that should be followed, but in order for art to be magnificent, it must not be bound by rules. The steps can guide art to greatness, but it cannot lead it to its destination.
ReplyDeleteI'm one of the art students in the course, actually, and I would just have to say that no definition of art could be too broad. We are taught to basically never ask that question because for any answer, there will be a counter. I would definitely say that any work of art could include or exclude any of those steps (I think a lot of the pieces we look at in our conceptual classes skip the Craft step for sure). For example, portraiture started off not as a way to "say/reveal something" about a person, but a way to document a person's looks and possessions. This would have included all of the steps, no doubt, but probably would have reordered them; craft would have been one of the first steps, as the artist would have been chosen to create this portrait by their talents.
ReplyDeleteHowever, contemporary portraiture is not as it used to be. We use art as a method of expression; there is little need for the portrait to actually look like the subject, as long as the image portrays that person's energy, personality, or some striking feature about him/her/they.
Basically, the six steps are guidelines that do not have to be followed or even looked at, but are nice to reference. Art is a complicated thing and confuses everyone: Do I ask about the art or is the point of this piece to NOT ask? Art school is super hard for this reason.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFollowing Traci's comments, I agree that no definition of art can be to broad. Just recently there was a discussion in class about how the experience was the art and not the object. Therefore, in relation to comics, the comic itself is not art, but the making is. Then what is the comic in a sense of art? It would be a record of an experience, relating that to a viewer.
ReplyDeleteAll of that brings me to the six steps. In my opinion they can be rearranged, have a few eliminated, or add things onto them in reference to creating a "thing". Personally, when making art I find myself making something, and just letting grow. As I approach finishing the piece, and/or during its creation I find myself noticing the purpose or idea of it. Rarely is it, for me, an idea followed by other steps. The idea or purpose is found by creating.