Read the following
excerpt from Douglas Wolk's
Reading Comics about the question of whether comics (it sounds strange to make it singular, I know) is a medium or a genre. What is the difference between a medium and a genre? Why does Wolk suggest it matters which one we label comics? What does he mean by "highbrow" comics? Can we put a work like Spiegelman's
Maus, with which we will begin the semester, and
Archie (seen above) alongside one another?
It is kind of like comparing a magazine article to a newspaper article. Comics, graphic novels and manga are various mediums and there exist various genres within those mediums. So I think it is fair to say that Archie and Maus share the same mediums but are of different genres within that medium.
ReplyDeleteYou would normally take into account the subject matter or message of the material when dividing them apart, as well as the length of the project. Although both Maus and Archie are comic mediums they are separate from one another due to being different genres and lengths.
In my opinion, comics are definitely a medium. The way I look at it medium is the format in which information is presented, while genre is an analysis of the narrative structure of the information itself. Film is a medium, the novel is a medium, music is a medium. Respectively, action, nonfiction, and rap are genres. Comics are a medium, and are a capable of the same sub-classifications: superhero, slice-of-life, horror, and so forth.
ReplyDeleteAs to the question of comics as a medium or genre, I think it’s pretty clear that they are a medium. A medium is a vehicle for communicating an idea of set of ideas. Genre, then, is the path the vehicle takes. To complete the analogy, I would say that the idea or set of ideas being communicated is the destination.
ReplyDeleteAny vehicle can get to the destination you want to go to (some may have a more difficult time than others). Also, you can take different paths to get to the same place. Moving back to the original terms, you can write a horror novel that communicates ideas about grief and loss. Or you can make a horror TV show that communicates ideas about grief and loss. Or you can make a horror TV show that communicates ideas about coming-of-age. Or you create a superhero comic that communicates ideas about coming-of-age.
Hopefully these examples and definitions are useful when talking about medium, genre, and subject matter.
P.S. – You could make the argument that genre and subject matter are more intertwined than I’m letting on. If you do disagree, feel free to say so!
The whole time I was reading the article I kept brainstorming ways to make the analogy Max made. So I'm glad it was already written out perfectly for everyone to see!
ReplyDeleteI think Wolk has put such emphasis on the importance of labeling a comic as a medium or genre because the first reaction many people have is that comics are all about superheroes. The important distinction is that a genre has a similar story or story elements within each individual piece, while the medium is the materials or methods used to portray the story. If comics/graphic novels are all placed under one genre, that means all the stories have similarities in plot or elements of the tale; however, comics can be about any number of things, not just superheroes.
I think all comics (like all forms of literature and all paintings) can be placed beside one another for comparison, but that does not mean that a person who likes Maus will automatically like Archie. Different genres of comics attract different audiences, just like any other medium of storytelling or other artistic expression.
What is the difference between a medium and a genre?
ReplyDeleteAccording to the excerpt medium is like sculpture, or film. Genre is a category. For instance, in film there would be science fiction, martial arts, western, horror, etc...
Why does Wolk suggest it matters which one we label comics?
I think that he feels that it is important to make the distinction because comics are written about different things, not just superheroes.
What does he mean by "highbrow" comics?
The author suggest that "highbrow" comic are some how not really comics but something else. As if the highbrow comics are for a different type of reader.
Can we put a work like Spiegelman's Maus, with which we will begin the semester, and Archie (seen above) alongside one another?
This is a tough question. Because some will say it yes you can put Archie along side Maus where as others will say they do not compare. I feel that they should definitely be put on different parts of the book store shelves.
Darius,
DeleteI found your comment about putting Archie and Maus on different bookshelves insightful. I think readers, collectors, and booksellers have been defining and solidifying genre through the use of bookshelves and sections for a long time. Genres may be different, but they still exist in the same medium and the same store (just in different places.) We can still go through categorized bookshelves and pull individual works out for comparison (and probably a lot of contrasting) while they can rest easy in neat genres for readers to find easily.
-Ruthie
Medium, as with all art, refers to the means by which the artist expresses their art. Thus, a comic can be a western in the same way Guardians of the Galaxy can be a comic book FILM. Genre refers to the stylistic qualities of the work, which can be likened to other works with such.
ReplyDeleteIt is important to distinguish the two when speaking of comics, because it completely alters the way in which you analyze the text. Medium holds the text to the dialogue of literature, while maintaining its idiosyncrasies and avoiding its dismissal as a lesser craft.
The distinction of high and low brow is the same across all art/entertainment, and closely refers to the work's sensibilities on the spectrum of art to entertainment, which are rarely every mutually exclusive. It's hard to divorce the term 'high brow' from its pretension, but, as in popular music, there is a often a huge and discernible difference.
I'm interested to hear from those who want to make a distinction between "high-brow" and "low-brow": how do you define/differentiate between the two? Without using examples, can you explain to me what constitutes the distinction?
ReplyDeleteI certainly see Wolk's point; comics should be defined as a medium as opposed to a genre. Honestly, I feel he is arguing a bit about semantics here. According to Wolk, medium is the "how" an idea is conveyed whereas genre is the "what."
ReplyDeleteA story can be conveyed in the form of a novel, movie, painting, TV series, cave drawing, comic, stage production, etc. These are some of the many mediums a story can be told. Or how it can be told.
Genre, then, relates more to the theme ... or the "what" of an idea. Take the two samples from above. The panel from "Archie" is one of innocence, romance, and brightly colored comedy. This is starkly contrasted with "Maus." The latter piece is a dark memory; gritty, and serious.
"Maus" may be precisely what Wolk refers to as "high brow," but this does not mean "Archie" is any less of a comic book. The two comics aren't just for two different groups of people - in fact, they can be for the same person depending on their mood. For instance, sometimes I feel like watching 'Breaking Bad' and other times "Family Guy." I believe he wishes to distinguish comics as a medium for this exact reason. While not all TV shows are say, "Alf" not all comics are "Archie."
Your comments so far are great and introduce some of the questions we will use to govern our work this semester. Most of the books we'll be reading have been categorized under the heading of "graphic novels" to distinguish then from more mainstream comics, but many of us think that it's a bit of a phoney distinction. The critic Hillary Chute, for instance, thinks we should categorize all comics under the heading "graphic narratives," instead of "graphic novels" or "comics," to keep the category as open as possible.
ReplyDeleteThe second, related issue of high-brow vs. low-brow art is a fascinating one, as well. What do you think about Max's question? How would you describe the difference between the two? Is it a valid difference? And, most importantly perhaps for our class, how have questions about high- vs. low-brow art dogged comics since their inception? As many of you know, for a long time, many readers classified comics as being "for-children" and thus didn't take the work of comics artists seriously.
As you read the selection of McCloud due on Thursday, keep these ideas in mind. I will put up a post about McCloud on which you can comment for our Thursday "class," soon.
The high-brow vs. low-brow argument is a tough one for me; and I'm still not sure I consider it entirely valid. When I think of "low-brow" comics, I think of comics that are really just there for enjoyment, not so much for intellectual or emotional stimulation, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all.
ReplyDeleteBut "high-brow" comics definitely (in my mind, at least) carry a bit more weight to them, almost like they take themselves very seriously, sometimes to the point of feeling pretentious. They'll try to make you think, rather than just entertain you.
All that being said, I'm not sure it's entirely valid because it's so very subjective. One comic that someone thinks is simply just amusing could have a huge emotional/intellectual impact on another person.
The excerpt establishes well that comics are their own medium and that Archie and Maus would be considered genre within the medium. But I think it brings up the interesting issue of comic book stigmatism. I find it interesting that comics have always carried such an intense stigmatism against them primarily as they are seen as “childish.” Maybe it is because many people are limited in their knowledge of genres within the medium. Most people think of superheroes or something like Archie when they hear the word comic and since they lack a certain complexity they aren’t considered mature.
ReplyDeleteBut in a way both genres have their own complexity and history that should be taken seriously. Both have evolved with the times or were ahead of their times in terms of characters of different races, ethnicity, religious backgrounds, sexual orientation, physical and mental disabilities, and so on. There is a great deal that can be learned and explored with comics as medium and every genre has its own history to offer despite not having the dubious honor of being considered a graphic novel.
I think the idea of high-brow vs. low-brow art a product of subjectivity. What I think is low-brow someone else could just as easily as view as high-brow and vice versa. But for mediums at large it is like subjectivity out of control. Who decides which medium and, even at that, which genre within the medium is somehow better than the rest? I want to say it’s a majority vs. a minority situation but it doesn’t always seem that way. For comics, however, it definitely feels like it started as majority vs. minority as comics were at large unpopular for years but as their popularity expands we begin to see issues of distinctions such as graphic novels. For some reason a distinction has to remain instead of letting comics flourish in their own right.
So what I was hinting at earlier with my question is that I truly don't believe that the ideas of 'high brow' and 'low brow' have any useful meaning when talking about comics (or any kind of art for that matter).
ReplyDeleteA couple of my classmates above have tried to explain the distinction, but struggled to do so (and rightly so). I think the idea that somehow works must be sorted into categories based on some vague idea about how much (heavy quotes here) "merit" the work has is problematic at best and flat out naive at worst.
Now obviously, there is a difference between Jim Lee's drawings and Picasso's. But any inherent superiority we assign to them outside of the established frameworks for evaluating drawing is meaningless.
Low-brow/high brow distinction is an arbitrary tool used to make people feel superior about the stuff that they like.
The two comic strips that are located at the top of the page have the same medium but not the same genre. This often confuses people about the difference between medium and genre. A medium is a way of portraying imagery in a certain way. For comics it includes graphic novels and manga. A genre on the other hand portrays a story in a certain way such as fantasy, realism, horror, etc. This is important to understand when labeling comics because Wolk argues that it is an error of ignorance. He believes that the creative process of comics are better portrayed themselves than the ones that are made into movies. Another type of error of ignorance are called high brow comics, which are a tool used to make people feel superior about their likes. this could lead to stereotypes and segregation. In conclusion, can we put the two strips Spiegelman's Maus and Archie along side each other? We can as mediums, but not as genres.
ReplyDeleteAs someone with limited experience with comics and graphic novels, I had always imagined comics as a series of stories contributing to a larger narrative arch as opposed to a graphic novel which I assumed were limited to the binding of one or two books, with a much shorter arch. Obviously my original concept was flawed, which I realized when my fiancé brought home the first compendium of the Walking Dead!
ReplyDeleteI like the imagery Wolk describes to represent the correlation of genre and medium. Picturing the medium as a box and genre as bags within the box cleared up some of the confusion for me. As far as high-brow or low-brow subject matter, I agree that that is entirely relative to the reader and could not be included in a concrete definition of genres.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Max's comment on highbrow and lowbrow comics. The terms are subjective, and (as Wolk suggested) say much more about the person using the term than the comic itself. I imagine those people don't subscribe to cable because it's so blasé.
ReplyDeleteTo me, it seems easier to distinguish what people mean by lowbrow comics which are probably those of the "funny papers" and/or superhero variety. Wolk suggests that people treat these comics as failed, and therefore have to label the comics they're reading as separate and somehow better.
Medium or genre? Wolk is right in saying comics is a medium. It's important to label it as a medium because labeling it as a genre is just plan incorrect, and limiting. In media where critics have more jargon to sling around (i.e. film or literature) it would never fly to call it a genre.
I think you could put Maus and Archie next to each other, in the same way that you could put Singin' In the Rain and Schindler's List next each other. You may not be able to draw interesting comparisons (and would probably be better off comparing different media from the same genre) but they are of the same medium.
After reading Wolk’s excerpt, there isn’t any doubt in my mind that comics/ graphic novels are a medium. That can be further categorized into genres, sci-fi, superheroes, horror, etc. That’s pretty plan and simple. Wolk further this distinction though into the criticism of comics and weather that supported that comics were their own medium or a mediocre form of other mediums, i.e. film, novels. He criticized the language in which we talked about the comics; this I thought was net-picking the issue.
ReplyDeleteNow whether we should differentiate between high- brow and low-brow comics is like asking if we should consider pop music on the same level of classical composers, or Bob Ross with Van Gogh. As a fine artist I certainly do believe in the difference between low- brow art and high- brow art, no matter what the medium. Low- brow art is meant to sell, and entertain, that’s about it. The use of easily accessible material is purposely used, for it is meant to keep up with the fast pace, immediate satisfaction style of todays pop culture. While high- brow art is meant to ask the audience questions, make them think. It lingers with the audience for a longer time, hence the use of the word “heavy” in describing its meanings and intentions. This being said, I do not value one more than the other. High- brow and low- brow are just two more genres placed into the medium of said art.
In response to Andy's comment...
ReplyDeleteSo a 'fine artist' making 'high brow' art has no interest in selling their work? Is spending several hours in a museum not entertaining?
What is the reaction of someone who isn't a trained artist when they see a Rothko painting? It means absolutely nothing to them. This 'meaning' and 'intention' that you're assigning to 'high brow' art is never inherent to the work or text. It's entirely malleable depending on who's looking at it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI never said that a fine artist who looks as their work as high brow art doesn't want it to sell, thats obviously something every artist wants. Most, though, do not think of whether it will sell or not as part of their process. I know how I can make art that will be easily accessible to a large audience and that will sell, but perhaps due to its aesthetic, process or contextual/ conceptual meaning, etc. is not something I, as the artist, is interested in or want to say with my art.
DeleteIn response to the Rothko statement, one does not need to be a trained artist to understand or react to a Rothko. The meaning and intention is inherent within his work, it all depends on how you look at his paintings and what you ask from his paintings. If one shrugs off his paintings at first glance because they blocks of color in varying levels of contrast, then obviously you weren't trying very hard to understand the piece. Art is not something that should hit you over the head like a cinder block, its more of like a bug bite that irritates you and keeps itching away until you have to go back to understand it. If you never take the time to truly think about "high- brow" art then there's no way for you to see thats artist intention.
Rothko did make beautiful paintings that causes powerful impacts upon people, whether it makes them cry upon the site of one, or leaves them frustrated that someone can make millions of dollars off of painting squares of color. He knew what he was doing, and he did it in all the right ways. Otherwise you wouldn't have just used him as an example now.
I'll agree with you on the subjectivity of judgement of art, but disagree with the fact that high- brow and low- brow distinctions are meaningless and arbitrary. I agree with Sabastian's categories/ requirements on determining wether some thing can be considered high or low brow art. Audience and Context.
I agree with Wolk in that it is important to specify comics as a medium, not a genre. To simply stereotype comics as some form of childish, immature pulp fiction is an injustice to the medium. Many comic books and graphic novels have incredible artistic depth, as well as explore and discuss difficult even controversial topics.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I also agree with Andy and Chelsea, for the most part, that there is a definite distinction between "high-brow" and "low-brow" art. There is some objective truth to the fact that one work of art can be more beautiful than another, and in the same context, more depth and complexity. A comic book like "Maus" may carry more weight from an artistic standpoint than a comic like "Archie." However, this is not to say that some comic books like Archie or even Marvel super-heroes cannot carry incredible weight. Many super-hero comic books have dealt with contemporary topics in a way that many other mediums have not. For example, the "Civil War" arc spanning the entire Marvel universe explores the relationship between government monitoring and enforcing security versus personal privacy.
Yet I do find interesting the argument that "low-brow" art is merely created for revenue. Many forms of "low-brow" art are created for the sake of art and aestheticism rather than for money. Think of graffiti artists. Most of them never see a dime for their work, yet they often risk legal punishment in order to showcase their creations. I also disagree that "high-brow" and "low-brow" art are not inherent to the work and are dependent on the viewer's subjective opinion. When a child sees a work like the Sistine Chapel, regardless of his artistic training, knowledge, or ability, he still stares on in wonder. So, I would argue that the classification of a work as "high" or "low" can be intrinsic to the work itself, although not always. Even if one does not understand or can not appreciate a work of art, the individual can still recognize a piece as being more elevated than another by artistic standards.
I stand on the basis that the classification of art as high and low is dependent on two things.
1. Audience. If the work is designed to appeal to a certain audience, this can classify it as either high or low art. For example, a work of literature that is complex in nature and utilizes a vast array of sophisticated vocabulary may be considered high art because it is composed for an intelligent, academic audience. A work of literature that is geared towards the common masses and can be understood and appreciated by all would be considered low art because it can become part of a larger culture, such as an entire nation, rather than an eclectic group of individuals.
2. Subject matter. The topic of the work can also determine its class. Pieces of art that delve into deep, philosophical, spiritual, or metaphysical topics can be determined as high art, while works that pertain almost exclusively to practical every-day issues may be considered low art.
Andy and Sebastian,
ReplyDeleteWe'll definitely have to agree to disagree on this one (I could go back and forth about this all semester). But I appreciate the thoughtfulness and thoroughness of your viewpoints.
I do think street art is a really interesting example of this topic. (And if you've never seen the film 'Exit Through the Giftshop', I'd highly recommend it as it asks a lot of the same questions we are asking in a really interesting way.)
I find it fairly obvious that comics and graphic novels (rather any static sequencial art, usually with text) would make up a medium rather than the more narrow genre. A genre implies similarity of content, subject, or presentation among all those works within it. The fact that we have Archie and Maus existing in the same style of work (text and image in sequence) indicates their is a broader organization to comics and graphic novels than genre alone. While there may be similarities in presentation, their content, subject matter, and mood differ vastly. Therefore, we need terms like medium to express the broadness of works we call comics.
ReplyDeleteWhen we start talking about "highbrow" and "lowbrow" comics, we start to create genre within the medium. We do not, however, create different mediums. We start to select from works in the medium and categorize them according to a set of standards into genres. Pulpy, everyday work becomes like pop-art (another low-brow genre): something common and easily accessible to a wide audience. Similarly, people decide something less accessible and more intellectual is high-brow, much like we do with fine art.
There's definitely a place for both Archie and Maus in the medium of comics. They can use the same visual language (image and text in sequence) to express very different things.
In my mind, comics are definitely a medium that include many different genres. If we labeled all comics as a genre, then we would have to include many sub genres. In order to make things simple, it's just easier to label comics like all other mediums. The argument that states high brow comics should be labeled as something else just makes matters more confusing. It's time that all comics receive the respect that they deserve.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete