As you may have noticed, King differs greatly from a number of other texts we've read this semester--both in its visuals, its composition, and its storytelling choices.
Early in the semester, you had a great conversation about the differences (such as they are) between "high" and "low" art, and how comics is often left to straddle divide between the two. This conversation questioned the very notion of constructing boundaries between mass and elite cultural production, even as many of you admitted that the ideas of high and low continue to filter into how we appreciated and categorize art. (Think of visiting "Half-Price Books," for instance--how does the store's shelf categorization suggest something about the place of genre fiction (such as crime fiction, romances, etc.) as compared to what we deem "literary fiction"?). How does King borrow from the conventions of both "high" and "low" art, as well as the vocabulary of film, to tell MLK's story? Is King more like the sort of visual art you'd see hanging in a museum or gallery than what you'd usually associated with the visual universe of comics? For those of you who have the big, "special edition" of the text, how does the "making of" section in the back of the book affect your sense of Anderson's project in constructing King?
Moreover, as I will outline further in my podcast, King differs from the other works we've read because it tells the story not of a random individual (as Maus and Persepolis do) or of a group seeking rights (as Stuck Rubber Baby does), but of an iconic figure that many of us have already encountered in written or visual form (t.v., film, photography). How does the fact that King is about an iconic figure affect your reading of the text? How does it affect Anderson's use of visuals and storytelling technique? What do you make of his opening of the text with young MLK, his use of the "chorus" of commentators on MLK, the stark black and white palette (mixed with the occasional use of color) employed throughout the book, and his introduction of photographs, however blurry, into the text? Perhaps, most strikingly, what do you think about Anderson's choice to show the darker side of King in terms of his extramarital affairs? Please use the space below to comment on some of these questions about King.
I know this text is a challenging one, and I will use my podcast and some further blog posts to help us make sense of it.
When I first opened the book, I was amazed at the style of the art (and to a much lesser degree my eyes hurt). King is unlike something I have ever read before, both in art style and in narration. This style clearly belong in a museum, and I'd be happy to visit that exhibit. I think that the opening of the text is more like a set up to get the reader engaged. It's like the beginning of a movie where the beginning credits are rolling until it actually get to the point. Or perhaps this is just showing us the end of the book. Either way this is something I might use when I'm writing.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the main character being an iconic figure, I can say that I'm impressed. Throughout the course, we've only seen the narrations of random figures that involve themselves with historical events. Now that we have an actual iconic figure, I assume that things will get interesting. MLK might have been one of the most iconic figures to ever exist, so seeing a book like this might see his story in a whole new light. I actually look forward to seeing more.
History/Icon
ReplyDeleteThe iconic nature of Martin Luther King Jr. is (perhaps obviously) one of the most important aspects of ‘King’. Whenever someone talks about such an iconic/historical figure like this, you have to realize that there’s almost no way to objectively understand the person. Our collective understanding of people like MLK is necessarily a ‘negotiated’ one. What that means is that it is always going to be a hodge-podge of fact and fiction from an almost unlimited point of view. In the last 10-15 years we’ve had so many docu-dramas about figures from this era, detailing not only their public lives, but their private demons as well. It’s a really easy way to make a buck, especially in Hollywood.
While I do think there’s some of that going on here, I do have to give Anderson credit for at no point (at least in my edition of the book) making any claims to ‘King’ being a historical document or even the ‘based on a true story’ line. In fact, I skipped ahead a little bit and saw the page that says ‘Truth of Myth-None of That Matters-All That Matters is the Legacy’. I kind of see this as the thesis of ‘King’.
Comics
As an overall piece of comics storytelling, I’m not inherently impressed by ‘King’. I will say I’ve only read the first half so far, which seems much more restrained then the second half in terms of composition/technique. I’m really excited to read those pages, but I’m not there yet. The first half of the book is pretty cut and dry in terms of page layouts, panel layouts, etc. The very early scenes were pretty muddy for me and I had a hard time understanding what was going on. This may be a strategy from Anderson, but if so the opening scenes of the book are not the place to do it, in my opinion.
Drawing
So the drawing craft here is pretty excellent. He’s technique in ‘King’ is very similar to Mike Mignola’s drawing technique, which Mignola has pretty much made a career out of. Anderson’s drawing style in ‘King’ is pretty much the purest possible example of using visual closure to communicate information. There are two colors: black and white. And while traditional comics drawing uses black as line, shape, form, etc., Anderson chooses (generally speaking) to balance the two within the panel. What that means is that we no longer read the black as figure, but there is a constant shift/reversal that happens between black being figure or ground.
This technique draws on how our brain processes and groups information. When we look at these drawings our brain is looking for clues: what does a nose look like, is that a cheek?, etc. By engaging in this process our brain is able to assign the various abstract shapes in real-world analogues. ‘That shape is the shadow of a face’ for example. Now this is the same process that happens when you look at traditional comics art, but the difference here is that you’re brain is looking at both the black and the white shapes instead of just the black lines.
Why is this important? Well to me it’s really significant because this idea of confusion/closure is totally in line with Anderson’s thesis about our historical understanding of Martin Luther King Jr. ‘Truth of Myth-None of That Matters-All That Matters is the Legacy’. With regard to the drawing style it’s not the black that makes the picture, it’s not the white that makes the picture, it’s both. In this way the form and content are in a perfect marriage here toward the strategic end of Anderson’s overall thematic goals for the work.
First of all, I know this sounds harsh, but I have a hard time considering "King" to be high art. While I would agree that its subject matter is very deep and complicated, as well as meaningful and inspirational, from an artistically aesthetic point-of-view, I would classify "King" as low art. For one thing, the artwork is very hard to follow. I found myself struggling to make out what was going on in certain panels, and often never was able to make out an image. Furthermore, it makes it difficult to identify certain characters. I couldn't even pick out Martin Luther King in some of the panels. Even more confusing is the fact that it is rarely possible to identify who is speaking at a given time. Overall, this makes it all very hard and confusing to understand. I would not visit a museum exhibit showcasing the artwork, and from the standpoint of storytelling, I find it very poorly composed. If "King" had been a movie, perhaps it might have worked better. But the rough animation and scattered panels makes it more of a difficult, painful read than an enjoyable, informative, or enlightening one. I apologize if my rant of dislike for "King" offends anyone. I am just having a difficult time reading this book without growing frustrated.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, the fact that "King" focuses on an iconic, historic, and well-known figure changes a lot. Unlike "Stuck Rubber Baby," which was fictional, "King" is all based on real-life events, some of which are well-known to modern audiences. Seeing scenes with such historical figures as Rosa Parks and John F. Kennedy makes these events come to life and feel more real for the reader. I personally felt that the opening of the book was the only real enjoyable part, and I prefer reading the sections with the "chorus" of commentators rather than the rest of the novel. If there is any one aspect of Anderson's artwork that I will praise, it is his use of representing multiple forms of media in the novel. The grainy photo-like drawings, the actual photos, the full-page illustrations, and the stark contrasts of black and white all provide for interesting in-depth conversations. The panels that he chooses to represent with photos or photo-like illustrations all give the book a feel of realism, and I notice that he uses these media mostly in regard to well-known or significant events of history. The full-page illustrations always give off a profound emphasis of whatever matter they cover. And the contrasting black and whites throughout the novel, specifically the "chorus" character interviews, is representative of the racial conflicts between blacks and whites.
I must admit, I was slightly disappointed of Anderson's inclusion of King's extramarital affairs in the text, but not because of Anderson's choice, but rather of Martin Luther King. I have always admired Dr. King, respected his work, and tried to emulate his stance on non-violence in my own life. However, I also hold high standards of fidelity, specifically in regards to marriage, and so this dark stain on King's life has always been a bit disheartening. Nevertheless, Anderson's depictions of the extramarital affairs is often confusing and left unresolved. For example, when King is out swimming with a friend and he states that he talked with his wife about his affairs, the friend asks how she took it, and yet we get no response. The same goes for when Coretta angrily blurts out her anger with King for having engaged with other women, but she merely apologizes, and then the scene changes. I would have preferred more explanation, because the way it is, it feels as if King's affairs were very important, but not to be taken very seriously.
Do you think that Anderson is making choices about drawing style and how he treats the extramarital affairs, or do you think he's just being incompetent?
DeleteI think that he is making these choices deliberately, and not simply out of incompetence or inability. However, I would argue that his choices are very poorly made and aesthetically displeasing from an artistic point of view. But that's just my opinion.
DeleteFirst, I'd like to address the 'darker' side of King. I personally enjoy reading about the nuanced nature of human beings and I do not believe King's extramarital affairs diminish his role in the Civil Rights movement. I'm glad to see that Anderson has opted to steer away from treating MLK as a saint and more as a person that has flaws, doubts, and hang-ups. I particularly enjoy his use of (occasional) foul language. My partner is a pastor at a local church and I can attest that away from the pulpit and her congregation, she curses like a sailor. I don't believe Anderson should shy away from character flaws just because King is an iconic individual. The graphic novel focuses on King the person, not so much the changes he brought about.
ReplyDeleteSwitching gears, I'm not a fan of the whole "high art/low art" debate. I find the work of Norman Rockwell just as compelling as a painting by Monet. Society tends to view Shakespeare as high art but much of his work was "low art" during his lifetime. Is the artwork in "King" something Id enjoy at a museum? Probably not, but then again my favorite artwork is grand, nautical paintings I've seen hanging in New England museums. I enjoy Anderson's use of drawings, photos, and sketches, however. Having flipped through the book I know there is a huge chunk of a color section coming up. So I find the earlier years in black-and-white to be significant (though I'm not entirely sure at this point why that is).
I love the use of the "Greek chorus." MLK is an iconic figure that elicits many different reactions. I have always been a fan of his and admired his life's work in ending discrimination as well as his fight against social injustice. With that being said, I also personally know a number of people that are MLK detractors (and their sentiments mirror those of some of the more skeptical members of the chorus). So I find the use of the chorus to be one of the more interesting aspects of the novel.
I agree with Aaron when he said, "I'm not a fan of the whole "high art/low art" debate. I find the work of Norman Rockwell just as compelling as a painting by Monet."
ReplyDeleteI also do not enjoy the debate of high/low art. Various styles of art each hold their own value and I enjoy the mixture of artistic styles in the comic 'King.' The moments of actual photography and the abstract black/white images with the random color cells are all beautifully done. This mix media is a wonderful style for comic/graphic novel story telling. My only issue so far is that I am not sure I agree that with wether or not this type of story mixes well the art. Its kinda like when your reading a novel and sometimes you find that the 1st person or 3rd person story telling doesn't fit the plot of the story.
For example I personally found that this sort of art style used in 'King' (the art in the first section) to be something better suited for the graphic story telling of 'Constantine.' The abstract color art used towards the ending feels like it is more suited for the framed art used in museums and art galleries.
I did however really enjoy the 'witness' pages in the beginning. I found that it was a very smart way to open the story, because not every witness gave the same response and it created for a more diversified view on MLK.
While I've had a lot of the same issues as Sebastian in terms of comprehension and understanding who was speaking/what was going on, I have to agree with Aaron on a lot of thing.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, the high art/low art thing, I feel as though we beat it to the ground. It's such a subjective thing, that it almost feels pointless to bring up. Case in point: Sebastian wouldn't consider King to be a high art, while Alexander seemed to think it was quite the achievement. It is interesting to think about what Glaser noted about Half Price Books and the painfully blatant divide they have from comics/science fiction books and what they consider literary fiction.
As far as MLK's transgressions being shown in the book goes, I'm all for it. Coming from a journalism standpoint, that's true reporting: taking the good with the bad and showing all sides. It wouldn't be realistic to portray him as a perfect man, because he was a man, and that inherently means he was flawed. I see people do this thing ALL the time, where they make someone out to be an absolutely perfect saint (examples include MLK, Lincoln, etc.) and it's a problem of balanced reporting. They hear what they want to hear and leave out the rest. So again, I absolutely love how it shows his faults. It doesn't take away from the good things he did, it's just real.
Question about your post: So do you think that writing fictional dialogue for MLK and 'putting words in his mouth' represents a 'real' portrayal?
DeleteThe art style of King seems to be more on the spectrum of high art than low art. A lot of our previous readings relied on a simple style that isn’t too dynamic in terms of meeting any kind of art style other than the one the artist of the comic has mastered after years of practice. King’s art focuses more on a gritty, sketchy and in some panels almost abstract style that comes across as realistic certainly more so than in our past readings. The cover of my edition in particular looks like an image someone would see hanging in an art museum as a visual representation of the times in which King lived. The only time I’d say there is any low art is the inclusion of song lyrics as often anything that isn’t classical is considered low art.
ReplyDeleteI was a little cautious about reading the text as it was admitted that some of the events were fictitious even if they were drawn upon real events. It’s made me more aware of the fact that I don’t know a lot about King’s past or his personal life outside of his involvement in the civil rights movement. I feel I should do more research myself. As with any great leader of the past we tend to revere them as saints without ever acknowledging that they were human too and had done/said things that aren’t up to par to this image. It’s shocking at first but it brings them down to earth and shows that they weren’t somehow an exception to human folly. Both King and Abraham Lincoln are spoken of in a reverent fashion because they worked towards benefitting black people but the idea that Lincoln wouldn’t have abolished slavery if he was given another choice or that King was believed to be arrogant about his leadership in equal rights or that he cheated on his wife shows us that they were flawed. It shows that not every leader is perfect and we need to recognize that especially when taking into consideration those we view as saints in today’s world.
The use of black and white gives the story of king a very stark contrast in terms of the images shown but it applies to the idea that often times when King is spoken of it is in a very black and white matter – he was a good man in a world full of inequality and struggle. When reading the story, however, and being presented with the different sides of King as a person it shows that things were not as black and white as the style seems to suggest. The use of colors on the other hand brings into focus the moments in King’s life that were a huge impact both in his life and in the course of the Civil Rights Movement.
I’m am often surprised by the pieces I see in a museum. The variation of low and high art can be just as present in that setting as any other. As for Ho Che Anderson work in King, he does seem to experiment with many different kinds of styles throughout his book. I prefer the parts where he uses color and more detail, compared to the stark black parts. The parts that use color seem to be a higher form of art to me. The stark black scenes make it confusing who was talking, and also made it hard to know what was happening in some instances.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do appreciate Anderson’s choice to tell the story from many perspectives. I feel that this method of telling the history of Martin Luther King’s is ideal. I would prefer if all historical events were told this way because it allows the audience to get the bigger picture of history. The reader not only gets the facts of what happened, but also gets a sense of the attitudes at the time.
I believe it is important to show all sides of Martin Luther King’s character; even the dark sides. This element of King’s history is humanizing. Many biographies make King out to be a saint who could do no wrong. By doing that, I feel that they make it so that no one could possibly relate to him. Whereas in this story of King, Anderson creates a more realistic person that can be emulated, and not just admired.
The art done in this comic really cannot be consider high art, really. It is mostly a series of illustrations where the reader can hardly differentiate between each character. It seems like it is altered photographs as well as drawings, which do not fit into a series together, in my opinion. I was very excited to read about King's life because I only know so much about him and learning about his past could be very cool. However, I feel like I do not know any more about his life than I did before, except that he cheated on his wife. I like the use of photographs in a historical biography like this, but stylistically they do not look great the way they are utilized.
ReplyDeleteThe opening, for me, was necessary and very interesting. I did not know he came from that religious of a family, so knowing that it was bred into him let me see a new side of him. The whole novel seems like an artistic experimentation and seems unfinished with all of the different styles and colors, etc. I appreciate Anderson's choice of showing King's darker side because we should all know the real truths about someone when we choose to read about them, but I just hope that he was not making some political statement about how King was not the saint he is made out to be. He still did great things. So far, I am personally disappointed in this novel. I hope it improves as we read more.
The art of King is fairly reminiscent of contemporary art (i.e. use of mix-media elements in a singular work, nontraditional visual narrative, experimentalism), and to that I say; make of that what you will. Contemporary art has its supporters and detractors, positives and negatives. Some say that it dilutes the definition of what "art" is (how can a bench sitting by itself in an empty room be compared to the works of the Renaissance masters?). Others say that it expands our notion of what art is, and allows it to create relationships with the viewers that would be previously unaccessible (I can sit on that bench, therefore I become part of the art). There really isn't a right answer, and that's ultimately how I feel about the art in King. There are things that I like, and things that I don't particularly agree with. But, ultimately, art is subjective. And in comic art, the line is even blurrier. The 2000AD imprint often uses mixed-media art styles (Judge Dredd is pretty much a thesis in comic art experimentation), and most of the time the images are portraying horrific acts of violence and destruction. Would that lower the tone of the art below where King sits, despite the fact that the same stylistic tools are used? Again, these aren't questions I can answer; I can only say what it means to me. I find the art to King to be a mixed bag.
ReplyDeletePacing is sort of odd, too. There's definitely a sense of influence from how films are edited. I was reminded of the film JFK while reading it. In that film, Oliver Stone used a variety of sources to construct his narrative, particularly in the marriage of fictional and documentary materials. I think the jumping around in terms of narrative structure and visual style are definitely evocative of that, if not always the easiest to follow.
In terms of the character focus, I think that it's important to humanize our saints - even the modern ones. Historic figures often loom large, becoming banners of movements or concepts, rather than seen as the flesh-and-blood people who believed, fought, and often died for those beliefs.There's a lot of source material out there about MLK, but it often has to be sought out. I think the comic does a good job of bringing some of that context to the forefront.
King is using a medium typically bound to the low art label, the characteristics of which are very present. We see vey classic comic patterns in the textures of some characters’ clothing. However, these are the same qualities adapted by Lichtenstein, who is decidedly a creator of high art. In some panels there is a definite impressionistic abstraction, which seems to be a point of contention and argument against the novel as high art for many classmates. I would argue that the difficulties of interpretation are very intentional in the same vain as a large portion of contemporary art. Also, the seemingly suspended-in-setting commentators are lit in a manner akin to film noir cinematography.
ReplyDeleteReading King is particularly interesting in comparison to our previous texts because we are constantly having to confront what we are reading with our predisposed opinions of a figure about whom we’ve been taught our whole lives. This creates a specific effect not found in the same way as the class’s other assigned texts.
A device concurrent with this distinction is the use of varying opinions through the ‘chorus’. This presents a protagonist more shaded than the absolute figure depicted in most of the text by which we’ve learned about MLK in the past. A purpose of King is to create a fuller, more human portrayal of an icon, which is immediately accomplished by the revealing King’s infidelity. It forces the reader to challenge the two-dimensional iconography and realize the man instead of the legend (the former’s usually more interesting).
The texts begins with these short interview moments. Personal testimony from anonymous and darkness shrouded figures tell us about an iconic historical figure.Initially I'm a little bit shocked by his portrayal as a vain womanizer from time to time. I expected a little more reverence for a figure like MLK. And even when these testimonies that are sprinkled throughout the text criticize his way of life in some small way, they always say he is a great man or something of that nature. I think these moments of humanizing description allow us to engage the narrative as a story of a man who had flaws even though he is incredibly iconic and revered today.
ReplyDeleteThe art style is a tricky too when dealing with icons. MLK's face and most of the faces in the story are rendered with beautiful shapes that instantly grasp the likeness of the iconic Dr. King. When tension rises, the art style becomes more expressive and like a wood cut print. When violence strikes, the images are colored red or orange. A strange oddity of this text is the use of photographs. I think maybe these are trying to ground the narrative in fact and actual representation since they do exist. As I continue reading, I recall these moments of stylistic variation to interpret the text.
"High" and "low" art can be categorized based of the presentation of the thing. High art is something you would find in a gallery, where low art is found at your common store. Therefore, the comics we have read, and are reading would, in relation to this theory, be "low" art.
ReplyDeleteSince King is about MLK, there is a baggage that comes with that. A topic taught so frequently, and that is so profound, it is hard to think people would read this without any prior knowledge. Without that knowledge, questions about Anderson choice to show the darker side of MLK would be irrelevant. Knowing these things allow for a more unique discussion that further develop what we have already learned. Which is a positive personally, because if it was just a regular take on MLK's life, it would be just another biography.
I think much of Anderson's efforts are focused on breaking down the idea of an icon. I don't believe he attempts to breakdown MLK as a person but rather bring him to a more relatable level. Since Martin Luther King is such an important figure, readers yearn to know the personal aspects of someone held up on a pedestal like himself. It is not so unlike the JFK and Monroe scandal. These events coupled with the opening testimonies in the novel personalize someone who is so distant from ourselves.
ReplyDeleteI believe another aspect that brings us closer to King is the illustration style. I think a graphic novel differs from cinema in a way that allows us to place ourselves in the role of the main character despite obvious differences. Since Anderson is not really an American his objective approach doesn't necessarily glorify MLK. He instead glorifies him for his accomplishments and grounds him his mistakes. It is interesting to note that besides his scandals everyone still makes a point to talk about how he is a great man.
I think the "High" and "low" art debate has alot to do with the perspective of the audience. As an audience we expect to see high art in a gallery setting and low art comes into our everyday life. I don't think much besides the intent and setting of the art has much to do with how people regard it.