PDA

View Full Version : How can we raise the profile of comic creators?


nolanjwerner
07-31-2006, 10:23 PM
The good thing is that the pendulum looks like its swinging towards creators becoming as important, if not more important then characters.

The bad news is that there's a lot of sentiment among comic fans against creators who, to quote someone else, 'think they're more important then the creators/concepts." The thing I pointed out about that was that the concept and material is absolutely part of the authorial voice.

So what can we do to remedy this and make creators the most important part of a comic's success? And how can it be done without going in to auteurism?

Kep!
07-31-2006, 10:33 PM
Free sex.

Seriously. Think about it.

Buckyrig
07-31-2006, 10:35 PM
Free sex.

Seriously. Think about it.

With comic book creators?

:yuk:

Awesomus Prime
07-31-2006, 10:53 PM
I don't know, I mean so called "real" literature already get's mroe respect and even there we see a massive and pervasive deconstructivist movement that says the author stops being a part of the text the minute it leaves his/her hands.

I think as readers we want characters to be what we want them to be and knowing someone else didn't mean for you to read what you did how you read it is heartbreaking. We rebel against the notion.

Do I think it's fair, hell no. Do I think it will ever change? Well "real" books have been being published for commercial sale how long now? I'd say for them it's only gotten worse.

nolanjwerner
07-31-2006, 11:12 PM
I don't know, I mean so called "real" literature already get's mroe respect and even there we see a massive and pervasive deconstructivist movement that says the author stops being a part of the text the minute it leaves his/her hands.

I think as readers we want characters to be what we want them to be and knowing someone else didn't mean for you to read what you did how you read it is heartbreaking. We rebel against the notion.

Do I think it's fair, hell no. Do I think it will ever change? Well "real" books have been being published for commercial sale how long now? I'd say for them it's only gotten worse.



Except that there are other literary theories that say that a reader adds something to the meaning.

Kep!
07-31-2006, 11:20 PM
Except that there are other literary theories that say that a reader adds something to the meaning.
So, you're saying that you started a discussion and the first real answer you got you slam as being wrong? BRILLIANT! We have a winner for Wanker of the Week!

Eliseu Gouveia
07-31-2006, 11:27 PM
Aside from a few exceptions, I donīt care much for charaters.


I usually try to see which creative team is working on which book and then I buy that book.

When the writer and artist leaves, I usually give it one, maybe two issues more to see how the next team is gonna screw the work the previous guys put before leaving.

nolanjwerner
07-31-2006, 11:28 PM
So, you're saying that you started a discussion and the first real answer you got you slam as being wrong? BRILLIANT! We have a winner for Wanker of the Week!


Actually, I was trying to say that there are other contemporary theories that see the author as something important in terms of the final output.

And "real" books have a huge emphasis on authors. Look at how authors like Grisham, King, Grafton, Patterson, etc. have become brand names as much as authors.

But comics do have the additional dimension of an artist (who is usually, but not always a different person) so the entire authorship dynamic is different.

Scott Story
07-31-2006, 11:39 PM
I guess the question should be, how do you get recognition for comic creators beyond typical comic readers? By typical comic readers, that probably means white, middle-class, males age 18 to 30, usually educated, with some disposable income.

Some creators do get non-comic media coverage. Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Stan Lee, they all get ink.

Thus, that leads me to conclude that having movies made of your intellectual property will get wider media attention.

Simple.

Kep!
07-31-2006, 11:41 PM
Some creators do get non-comic media coverage. Frank Miller, Alan Moore, Stan Lee, they all get ink.

Add in Bendais and Paul Jenkins and Strazinski and a few others for good measure...but who really cares about writers anyway?

Mr.Musgrave
07-31-2006, 11:54 PM
I don't care about Strazinski if that helps.

Kep!
08-01-2006, 12:01 AM
I don't care about Strazinski if that helps.
It certainly does, thank you.

Lovecraft13
08-01-2006, 12:06 AM
Actually, I was trying to say that there are other contemporary theories that see the author as something important in terms of the final output.

If by "contemporary theories," you mean marketing, then yes, the author would be something important in terms of the final output since they're selling the name, not the concept.

Kep!
08-01-2006, 12:10 AM
If by "contemporary theories," you mean marketing, then yes, the author would be something important in terms of the final output since they're selling the name, not the concept.
Lovely for books sold by the 1/2 million, but not so hot for limitted runs of 25k that only go to dark, dank holes of dispair where your little sister would feel unsafe...excuse me, I mean the direct market.

Toyandgadgetguy
08-01-2006, 12:27 AM
Isn't it all relative anyway?

Lovecraft13
08-01-2006, 12:35 AM
The good thing is that the pendulum looks like its swinging towards creators becoming as important, if not more important then characters.

The bad news is that there's a lot of sentiment among comic fans against creators who, to quote someone else, 'think they're more important then the creators/concepts." The thing I pointed out about that was that the concept and material is absolutely part of the authorial voice.

So... it's good that creators are becoming more important than the characters, but it's bad that they think "they're more important then the creators/concepts?" Plus, you want to know how do we remedy this, and make creators the most important part of a comic's success?

Do I need a "nolanjwener" to English dictionary, or are you just writing in circles?

William Blankenship
08-01-2006, 12:47 AM
BRILLIANT! We have a winner for Wanker of the Week!


No man,

I so own that title for a week. He can have it on friday.

nolanjwerner
08-01-2006, 01:20 AM
So... it's good that creators are becoming more important than the characters, but it's bad that they think "they're more important then the creators/concepts?" Plus, you want to know how do we remedy this, and make creators the most important part of a comic's success?

Do I need a "nolanjwener" to English dictionary, or are you just writing in circles?


DOH

I meant "characters/concepts." Made a typo there.

Lynn Lefey
08-01-2006, 03:44 AM
While it already seems there's some snarling going on, I'll step in and give my opinion.

There can be every theory any college professor cares to shovel about how art is only a matter of its perception by the reader, and therefore is a combination of both the author and reader, blah,blah, blah, but the simple truth is, the author is everything. In the comics medium, I expand 'author' to mean the entire creative team. Anyone who adds to the project. Characters are not important, because it's only the author's take on the character that matters. The Adam West Batman is NOT the same character as Frank Miller's Dark Knight. Concepts aren't important, because they are universal, and mostly unchanging; life, love, death, suffering, the effects of technology, order and free will, and so on. Authors don't create them, they just play with them.

The only thing left is the skill of the authors in manipulating the elements. I follow Allan Moore because he's consistantly good. I don't care if it's Swamp Thing, Watchmen, V, Top Ten, whatever. Swamp Thing is a perfect example. It's a terrible, uninteresting character, in the hands of any other author I've ever read, except Moore.

Comics are a medium that have a very secluded market. For some reason, there isn't the weird social stigma in Japan about comics like there is in America. I couldn't get a friend of mine to read 'Watchmen' even on threat of death, but she saw the movie 'V for Vendetta', and is now reading it, and NOW she'll read watchmen, after seeing how strong Moore's writing is.

You could take the most uninteresting characters in the world, and in the hands of a good writer, make them brilliant. Take the most popular characters, and in the hands of poor writers, the books will suck.

Maybe someone should do a cultural study to find out why comics in Japan are mainstream, but in America they're geek-boy fodder. Unless someone figures it out, American (and I assume most western) comic creators are destined only to become recognized when their material shifts into the accepted medias of movies or TV.

DamonX
08-01-2006, 08:54 AM
IMHO, the only thing that will change the perception of comic creators is continued quality products and time - time to gain wider acceptance.

Face it, most "literary" types will deride even the best that comics have to offer while, in that same breath, defend a mediocre novel writer. Our only recourse is to continue to create exceptional work in order to change that perception over time.

....oh, and that free sex thing.

Scott Story
08-01-2006, 10:19 AM
It's the media's fault. Whenever they cover comics, they throw in lots of pithey words like Zap, Pow, Secret Identity, and so forth. When they take film or pictures, they focus on nerds of the nerdiest sort, or nerds in costume. It's the media that consistantly delivers these outdated impressions of what comics and their readers are like. The media doesn't really want to change--it's their percieved job to package news in 'acceptable' bites. Wankers.

When I got into this medium, I pretty much knew it was a niche medium. That doesn't bother me too much.

Awesomus Prime
08-01-2006, 10:37 AM
Well let's get a little clarrification here, Nolan do you mean profile as in house hold name, or profile as in important. There is no literary theorist who gives a flying shit about John Grisham, hence deconstructavists don't pay him so much mind.

Will Comic creators become house hold names? As someone else said if they get a movie made.

Will they ever be important? When people are saying Dickens has nothing to do with the importance of his books and at least 50% of theorists take that deconstructivist side of the arguement do you think in 100 years anyone is giving Stan Lee credit?

EDIT: Do I like that? No.

dano
08-01-2006, 12:37 PM
Authors/creators are important if they are creating OGNs. "Brian K Vaughn presents Lions in Iraqi Zoos!" That is relatable to books. You have faith in the author to deliver a good story regardless of characters.

In established series, the character is important because the majority of the audience buys it based on the character. Sure you might get some superstar combo with a cult following but essentially you buy Batman because its Batman.

If creators want novel-author-like status, they have to start doing more OGNs which are sold in bookstores like other books. Popularity is a direct result of exposure.

JamieRoberts
08-01-2006, 01:16 PM
Authors/creators are important if they are creating OGNs. "Brian K Vaughn presents Lions in Iraqi Zoos!" That is relatable to books. You have faith in the author to deliver a good story regardless of characters.

In established series, the character is important because the majority of the audience buys it based on the character. Sure you might get some superstar combo with a cult following but essentially you buy Batman because its Batman.

If creators want novel-author-like status, they have to start doing more OGNs which are sold in bookstores like other books. Popularity is a direct result of exposure.

Exactly. How many authors write books based on established characters and are anything other than Alan Dean Foster?

Phatman
08-01-2006, 01:38 PM
I really don't see a problem with comic creators not having such a high profile. Many do, but most have no recognition outside out of this small field. In most cases, I don't think comic creators care about their "profile" or "recognition". This is a field that talented people usually take a drastic paycut to be part of out of a love for the medium. If your motivation is only fame,money,recognition, movie deals, etc. then comics aren't the way to go for you. There are a lot of much easier avenues to take as an artist or writer doing something else.

In an aside, I'm glad to see Stan Lee get some recognition, but it sort of irks me that you never here any credit to Kirby or Ditko for bringing his creations to life. If you ever hear an interview or discussion about Stan outside the comics press, you'd think he wrote, penciled, inked, colored, and lettered all of his books himself. This isn't Stan's fault, it's the outsidecomics/popculture media that only looks at comics as some bygone childhood fascination that no longer has any relevance other than to be mined for every nugget of an idea for some Hollywood monstrosity. As an art form, comics are still relevant, however, as a recognized form of entertainment they aren't because their very existance is largely ignored. Comics needs to raise it's profile as a form of entertainment, not the profile of a bunch a creators.

T.J. May
08-01-2006, 01:45 PM
This isn't Stan's fault, it's the outsidecomics/popculture media that only looks at comics as some bygone childhood fascination that no longer has any relevance other than to be mined for every nugget of an idea for some Hollywood monstrosity.

Actually it is Stan's fault, if there is blame to be assessed. That's how he ran/built his business and marketed everything. "Stan Lee Presents." He made all the appearances and took all the credit. And made sure it was legally reflected in the orignal contracts and copyrights.

He's a shrewd business man and everything that has happened to his creations and the direct result of his business plans and the people HE hired.

Scott Story
08-01-2006, 02:57 PM
That's all true about Stan, but it's also a big thing in that Stan has showmanship and self-promotion in his blood. He's really good at it. His co-creators aren't (Ditko) or weren't (Kirby). Ditko had a massive effect on Spider-man, yet you would never drag him into the public spotlight in the same way, because he wouldn't do it.

Kirby was very high profile within the comic industry, and perhaps has a bigger rep than Lee inside it. Kirby had almost as fundamental role in the modern DCU than he did in the Marvel U. Yet, as a master of pop art in the 60's, he still doesn't seem to be regarded in the same light as, let's say, Andy Worhal. Perhaps that's because Warhol spread his name and influence everywhere, and Kirby stayed largely within the comic industry.

Phatman
08-01-2006, 03:06 PM
Actually it is Stan's fault, if there is blame to be assessed. That's how he ran/built his business and marketed everything. "Stan Lee Presents." He made all the appearances and took all the credit. And made sure it was legally reflected in the orignal contracts and copyrights.

He's a shrewd business man and everything that has happened to his creations and the direct result of his business plans and the people HE hired.

I agree with all of that, but if the point is being "high profile" outside the comics medium, I don't think Stan has the clout to drive that engine. He's a convenient figurehead for comics in the outside comics world, that doesn't understand his role in it. He is very savvy, shrewd and underhanded at times, but that has little to do with his perception outside those who knows the business. My beef is that he's portrayed as Spiderman's creator when I think it was closer to 25% his idea and 75% steve Ditko's creation. The media doesn't get that artists like Ditko and Kirby were mostly responsible for Lee's creations-that's not Stan's fault, it just lazy reporting and a lack of respect for the medium IMO.

nolanjwerner
08-01-2006, 05:20 PM
DamonX, the question to me is whether we have that kind of time.

And I agree that the heirarchy of media that seems to exist is ridiculous (and its not just comics, there's the same thing with films and tv). A brilliant project is a brilliant project.

But I think that comics need to take some of the blame. Look at the balkanization that exists between mainstream comics, alternative comics and manga. There's really not a lot of crossover between the three readerships (at least in america), even though there are probably a lot of projects that would have crossover appeal. In reality, the three are really the same thing marketed in three different ways. And I think that, as creators, we should try to bridge that gap and get the fans to do it as well.

nolanjwerner
08-01-2006, 05:22 PM
Well let's get a little clarrification here, Nolan do you mean profile as in house hold name, or profile as in important. There is no literary theorist who gives a flying shit about John Grisham, hence deconstructavists don't pay him so much mind.

Will Comic creators become house hold names? As someone else said if they get a movie made.

Will they ever be important? When people are saying Dickens has nothing to do with the importance of his books and at least 50% of theorists take that deconstructivist side of the arguement do you think in 100 years anyone is giving Stan Lee credit?

EDIT: Do I like that? No.



I was saying that literary theory varies in regards to the role of the author. There's a pretty broad spectrum that goes from saying the author is meaniningless (the schools of deconstruction that say most things are meaningless) to saying that they are sacred and readers misread the work because its so daunting to them in its brilliance (Harold Bloom).

nolanjwerner
08-01-2006, 05:24 PM
Authors/creators are important if they are creating OGNs. "Brian K Vaughn presents Lions in Iraqi Zoos!" That is relatable to books. You have faith in the author to deliver a good story regardless of characters.

In established series, the character is important because the majority of the audience buys it based on the character. Sure you might get some superstar combo with a cult following but essentially you buy Batman because its Batman.

If creators want novel-author-like status, they have to start doing more OGNs which are sold in bookstores like other books. Popularity is a direct result of exposure.



I agree that the future for comic creators gaining that profile is with creator owned stuff, particularly short form stuff.

But even on teh big properties, we're seeing that the voices of creators are becoming more important. Look at how almost any of the big Marvel or DC books have changed in that regard over the last 10 years.

nolanjwerner
08-01-2006, 05:25 PM
Actually it is Stan's fault, if there is blame to be assessed. That's how he ran/built his business and marketed everything. "Stan Lee Presents." He made all the appearances and took all the credit. And made sure it was legally reflected in the orignal contracts and copyrights.

He's a shrewd business man and everything that has happened to his creations and the direct result of his business plans and the people HE hired.

I agree with all of that, but if the point is being "high profile" outside the comics medium, I don't think Stan has the clout to drive that engine. He's a convenient figurehead for comics in the outside comics world, that doesn't understand his role in it. He is very savvy, shrewd and underhanded at times, but that has little to do with his perception outside those who knows the business. My beef is that he's portrayed as Spiderman's creator when I think it was closer to 25% his idea and 75% steve Ditko's creation. The media doesn't get that artists like Ditko and Kirby were mostly responsible for Lee's creations-that's not Stan's fault, it just lazy reporting and a lack of respect for the medium IMO.

That's all true about Stan, but it's also a big thing in that Stan has showmanship and self-promotion in his blood. He's really good at it. His co-creators aren't (Ditko) or weren't (Kirby). Ditko had a massive effect on Spider-man, yet you would never drag him into the public spotlight in the same way, because he wouldn't do it.

Kirby was very high profile within the comic industry, and perhaps has a bigger rep than Lee inside it. Kirby had almost as fundamental role in the modern DCU than he did in the Marvel U. Yet, as a master of pop art in the 60's, he still doesn't seem to be regarded in the same light as, let's say, Andy Worhal. Perhaps that's because Warhol spread his name and influence everywhere, and Kirby stayed largely within the comic industry.




After Eisner, Stan Lee was probbaly one of the first people in the mainstream of comics to have both a distinctive voice and a sucessful one. He was one of the first people to sell books based on what he brought to it.

But I do agree that the artists he worked with didn't receive nearly enough credit. Honestly, it would have fizzled without them.

nolanjwerner
08-01-2006, 05:30 PM
I really don't see a problem with comic creators not having such a high profile. Many do, but most have no recognition outside out of this small field. In most cases, I don't think comic creators care about their "profile" or "recognition". This is a field that talented people usually take a drastic paycut to be part of out of a love for the medium. If your motivation is only fame,money,recognition, movie deals, etc. then comics aren't the way to go for you. There are a lot of much easier avenues to take as an artist or writer doing something else.

In an aside, I'm glad to see Stan Lee get some recognition, but it sort of irks me that you never here any credit to Kirby or Ditko for bringing his creations to life. If you ever hear an interview or discussion about Stan outside the comics press, you'd think he wrote, penciled, inked, colored, and lettered all of his books himself. This isn't Stan's fault, it's the outsidecomics/popculture media that only looks at comics as some bygone childhood fascination that no longer has any relevance other than to be mined for every nugget of an idea for some Hollywood monstrosity. As an art form, comics are still relevant, however, as a recognized form of entertainment they aren't because their very existance is largely ignored. Comics needs to raise it's profile as a form of entertainment, not the profile of a bunch a creators.




Comics need to raise their profile as an ART FORM, not as a form of entertainment. But other forms of entertainment view the contributions of individuals as valid and comics have had to fight bitterly for this.

I'm not even talking about auteurism here. I'm just saying that the profile of creators needs to be raised and thier contributions need to be seen as an important aspect of the overall work because we've seen the sales on corporately owned books that sell based on characters.

And Phatman, I'm not saying I am going to get rich doing comics. I know I won't. I just wnat to be able to work in the medium that I love and have my contributions as an artist seen as equally valid and have my contributions to the authorship of the work (since there is an artist so there's a weird split authorship, with authorship things sometimes going to editors, colourists, etc.) seen as something worthwhile rather then just being derided for acting "like I'm more important then the characters." And I don't see why that is too much to ask.

Buckyrig
08-01-2006, 05:33 PM
We need a Rock Star creator...who dies face down in a pile of coke surrounded by hookers. Then we'll get respect! :thumbs:

Scott Story
08-01-2006, 05:42 PM
And Phatman, I'm not saying I am going to get rich doing comics. I know I won't. I just wnat to be able to work in the medium that I love and have my contributions as an artist seen as equally valid and have my contributions to the authorship of the work (since there is an artist so there's a weird split authorship, with authorship things sometimes going to editors, colourists, etc.) seen as something worthwhile rather then just being derided for acting "like I'm more important then the characters." And I don't see why that is too much to ask.

Get rich doing comics!? If you can make a living in a comics, that alone means you are a big name creator. The only people getting rich are the businessmen and a few editors-in-chiefs (maybe).

On split authorship, just learn to do everything yourself. You'll be glad you did.

nolanjwerner
08-01-2006, 09:51 PM
Get rich doing comics!? If you can make a living in a comics, that alone means you are a big name creator. The only people getting rich are the businessmen and a few editors-in-chiefs (maybe).

On split authorship, just learn to do everything yourself. You'll be glad you did.


The only people getting rich off comics are the people who own Diamond. They're the only ones making a cent with the market the way it is.

I've tried to learn how to draw. Unfortunatley, my art skills peaked at the age of 9 and stagnated. But its better then my singing.

Phatman
08-02-2006, 02:06 PM
Comics need to raise their profile as an ART FORM, not as a form of entertainment. But other forms of entertainment view the contributions of individuals as valid and comics have had to fight bitterly for this.

I'm not even talking about auteurism here. I'm just saying that the profile of creators needs to be raised and thier contributions need to be seen as an important aspect of the overall work because we've seen the sales on corporately owned books that sell based on characters.

And Phatman, I'm not saying I am going to get rich doing comics. I know I won't. I just wnat to be able to work in the medium that I love and have my contributions as an artist seen as equally valid and have my contributions to the authorship of the work (since there is an artist so there's a weird split authorship, with authorship things sometimes going to editors, colourists, etc.) seen as something worthwhile rather then just being derided for acting "like I'm more important then the characters." And I don't see why that is too much to ask.

I agree and disagree with some of what you're saying.

Comics need to raise their level as an artform and entertainment if they are going to survive. Comics are a unique artform, but their goal is to tell stories, i.e. entertain. They are failing to be entertaining enough, marketted properly or offer the value of entertainment per dollar for the audience. Bottomline-comics aren't successfully competing with their competition, so the art "value" issue starts to become irrelevent if they cease to exist. It doesn't matter if creators' profiles are raised when most of comic's target audience doesn't even know comics exist anymore or where to buy them. Let's start getting the medium on track before we starting focusing on creators in movies, Gap commercials and getting their "props". There are a lot bigger issues than creators' "profile" in a dying industry.

Everybody here is looking to make a mark in the industry-this rarely entails getting rich or famous in circles outside the medium. Personnally, I don't care if anybody remembers me as a creator, as long as I gave the audience some enjoyment from my work, like the guys before me did for me, and I can contribute something that adds to the medium, makes it better, and keeps it going for the next generation of creators. If comics die during my lifetime, I'll consider it a tragedy and a personal failure. I think every person who works in the industry should have this mindset-from the small press to the Big Two.

Superman, Batman, Spiderman, etc. are part of pop culture and aren't going anywhere. If you* want comics to survive, you'd better get to work and put your ego and delusions of grandeur aside.

*(not aimed at you, specifically, Nolan-everybody, including me)

TonyLee
08-02-2006, 04:05 PM
If you can make a living in a comics, that alone means you are a big name creator.


Bollocks. I make my living in comics, and I'm not a big name creator.

There are a lot of people in fact, who make a living in comics and aren't big name creators.

Don't confuse 'make a living' with 'get very rich', okay? Good.

Scott Story
08-02-2006, 05:11 PM
Bollocks. I make my living in comics, and I'm not a big name creator.

There are a lot of people in fact, who make a living in comics and aren't big name creators.

Don't confuse 'make a living' with 'get very rich', okay? Good.


Whoa-kay. I'm glad you're a literalist. Sheesh.

TonyLee
08-02-2006, 07:22 PM
I take your statement as you state it.

If you don't want it taken that way - then don't state it that way. :)

nolanjwerner
08-03-2006, 04:29 AM
I agree and disagree with some of what you're saying.

Comics need to raise their level as an artform and entertainment if they are going to survive. Comics are a unique artform, but their goal is to tell stories, i.e. entertain. They are failing to be entertaining enough, marketted properly or offer the value of entertainment per dollar for the audience. Bottomline-comics aren't successfully competing with their competition, so the art "value" issue starts to become irrelevent if they cease to exist. It doesn't matter if creators' profiles are raised when most of comic's target audience doesn't even know comics exist anymore or where to buy them. Let's start getting the medium on track before we starting focusing on creators in movies, Gap commercials and getting their "props". There are a lot bigger issues than creators' "profile" in a dying industry.

Everybody here is looking to make a mark in the industry-this rarely entails getting rich or famous in circles outside the medium. Personnally, I don't care if anybody remembers me as a creator, as long as I gave the audience some enjoyment from my work, like the guys before me did for me, and I can contribute something that adds to the medium, makes it better, and keeps it going for the next generation of creators. If comics die during my lifetime, I'll consider it a tragedy and a personal failure. I think every person who works in the industry should have this mindset-from the small press to the Big Two.

Superman, Batman, Spiderman, etc. are part of pop culture and aren't going anywhere. If you* want comics to survive, you'd better get to work and put your ego and delusions of grandeur aside.

*(not aimed at you, specifically, Nolan-everybody, including me)



Unfortunately, I think you are right in a lot of ways but, at the same time, I think we're looking at the same thing from two different, yet possibly complimentary angles.

I agree with you that comics need to really get out there and put great projects out and, more importantly, get people to buy those great projects. There are way too many great comics that die quiet deaths due to apathy.

And I do think there's a lot of creator ego out there. But, at the same time, that's not really relevant to what I'm saying. The creator ego is definatley something that needs to go, the last thing we need is an industry filled with people who act like John Byrne in some of his less inhibited moments. But authorial voice for comic creators is something that needs to stay and becaome more important.

But, honestly, I can't see any way that the art form of comics can be raised without the importance of individual creative voices being important.

First of all, honestly, I think we've seen that auteurism is a theory that is both flawed and failed (movie directors probably being the only people who actually take it seriously anymore). Honestly, its probably the third most harmful thing for artists right now. The first two being arbitrary and capricious content regulations and the second being the deification of Joseph Campbell. It was based on theories of authorship that weren't actually particularly relevant to film and it ignored both the collaborative history of films and the substantial role of people besides the director in addition to assuming that directors had a hell of a lot more control then they really did (the exception being John Ford who shot only one take of things for the most part so his film could only really be edited the way he wanted it). And auteurism produced a lot of films that were, frankly, not all that great.

And even if the auteur theory were relevent to film, it wouldn't be particularly relevant to comics simply because comic stories always have an interplay between story and art, particularly if the writer and artist are different people. So there is AT LEAST a dual authorship for most comics (the authorship of the art and the authorship of the story). And the whole idea of authorship for art can be further subdivided between pencilers, inkers, colourists (I would certainly give Laura Martin as much credit as John Cassaday, if not more, for the success of his art), etc. And then there are questions about editorial input to this, there have been a lot of editors who probably deserved some portion of this. So even from the start we have a number of voices working together (or against each other) to create the voice of the final product.

But the thing that we can take from the auteur theory is that there are specific styles and sensibilities that a given creator brings to a work. And there's nothing wrong with seeing that as an important part of the ultimate success of a comic. Like take Batman, look at the Paul Dini Batman v. the Morrison Batman v. the Winick Batman v. THe Chuck Dixon Batman. And whether or not any of those Batman stories are entertaining, high quality or commercially successful depends to a large extent on the sensibilities that a given creator brings (since we can assume that Batman will sell pretty well regardless of who does it). And thats the kind of things I'm trying to promote.

And I think that can really only help comics to give creators that leeway.

Notice how just about every other medium out there has more emphasis on individual voices then comics (other then maybe television).

And just look at how hard comic creators have had to fight to be recognized. In the Golden Age, ONE PERSON got credit for a story (when there was credit at all) most of the time, even though it was pretty clear that a lot of those guys had assistants (and this is still fairly common in Japan). It took a while for there even to be creators credited. Then it took more time for there to be credits on the cover (DC phased it in during the 80s and 90s, the latest DC book I've seen without cover credits was like 97, Marvel put them on the cover in like 98 I think).

And, for most of their history, the corporate comics had no incentive to do a thing with creators. The Eisner like ones were pretty rare. And there's still a split thats pretty clear on superhero/nonsuperhero grounds regarding this.

As well as a writer/artist split. Notice how Stan Lee got credit and the artists he worked with got...less credit. Look at how the status of the writer went down the toilet with Image and how, ironically, that showed how important a writer actually was in terms of making a good comic. And today, writers generally have more importance but there's still a decent amount of power sharing.

D.J. Coffman
08-03-2006, 09:29 AM
This is an intersesting discussion from what I've skimmed.

I could go on and on about how COMIC BOOK CREATORS are missing the boat when it comes to WEBCOMICS-- but really the answer is simple..

We all should grow beards.

T.J. May
08-03-2006, 09:36 AM
This is an intersesting discussion from what I've skimmed.

I could go on and on about how COMIC BOOK CREATORS are missing the boat when it comes to WEBCOMICS-- but really the answer is simple..

We all should grow beards.

I think that would be career suicide for Naenae and the rest of the DW ladies :)

But from my perspective I already have the virtually "bald comic writer" thing going. So, should I grow the full Issac Hayes look or stick with the goatee?
:har:

dano
08-03-2006, 10:00 AM
I think the artform of cartooning and sequential art is doing fine. People are exposed to it on a daily basis and it's well accepted.
Practically every magazine printed uses cartoons or narrated illustrations. Comic strips are still popular and enjoy success online as well as in print and book compilations.
Even comic book graphic novels and TPB collections win literary awards and hit bestseller lists like the NYTimes.
Obviously, the public is open to comic book themes and characters as the recent mega success of comics adapted to films has proved.

The appropriate creators are doing fine as far as exposure and 'fame'.

It seems the area that is suffering is the narrow area of direct-selling team/corporate produced comic pamphlets (for lack of a better term).

edit: I think auteurism is most complimentary to comics (and music), rather than film. People do it all the time and it works great.

D.J. Coffman
08-03-2006, 11:06 AM
I think that would be career suicide for Naenae and the rest of the DW ladies :)

But from my perspective I already have the virtually "bald comic writer" thing going. So, should I grow the full Issac Hayes look or stick with the goatee?
:har:

Ok.. you have a point. However, if the female creator DID grow beards, maybe it would make people focus on the actual WORK instead of guys thinking "OH, A GIRL WHO DRAWS COMICS!? IS SHE HAWTNESS?"

:happy:

Ron Phillips
08-03-2006, 11:47 AM
But from my perspective I already have the virtually "bald comic writer" thing going. So, should I grow the full Issac Hayes look or stick with the goatee?
:har:

"bald comic writer" is my schtick. You can't have it. :p

Ingrid K. V. Hardy
08-03-2006, 11:51 AM
This is an intersesting discussion from what I've skimmed.

I could go on and on about how COMIC BOOK CREATORS are missing the boat when it comes to WEBCOMICS-- but really the answer is simple..

We all should grow beards.

I think that would be career suicide for Naenae and the rest of the DW ladies

Are you kidding?? May as well call it quits on life in general, unless you guys have a secret thing for the bearded lady..... :laugh:

Buckyrig
08-03-2006, 03:57 PM
Ok.. you have a point. However, if the female creator DID grow beards, maybe it would make people focus on the actual WORK instead of guys thinking "OH, A GIRL WHO DRAWS COMICS!? IS SHE HAWTNESS?"

:happy:

You're kidding right? That's someone's "thing." Shit, do a google search, there's probably a magazine. :eek:

Magilla1973
08-03-2006, 05:32 PM
I just wnat to be able to work in the medium that I love and have my contributions as an artist seen as equally valid and have my contributions to the authorship of the work (since there is an artist so there's a weird split authorship, with authorship things sometimes going to editors, colourists, etc.) seen as something worthwhile rather then just being derided for acting "like I'm more important then the characters." And I don't see why that is too much to ask.

Can you provide a link to some of your artisitic works ? I would like to evaluate and, if appropriate, appreciate your efforts.

Lovecraft13
08-03-2006, 08:12 PM
I just wnat to be able to work in the medium that I love and have my contributions as an artist seen as equally valid and have my contributions to the authorship of the work (since there is an artist so there's a weird split authorship, with authorship things sometimes going to editors, colourists, etc.) seen as something worthwhile rather then just being derided for acting "like I'm more important then the characters." And I don't see why that is too much to ask.

So this entire song and dance number was just for you to find some kind of personal validation in this field as an artist? Dude, if you want people to respect your concepts then pay your dues, network, gain a solid reputation, build a portfolio of published work, and then market yourself and your concepts. If you want to a piece of immortality, get to work! If you had one page of sequential artwork for every time you dropped the "auteurism" word in this thread alone, you would've already had an established portfolio.

nolanjwerner
08-03-2006, 09:00 PM
I already have a beard actually.

I think the artform of cartooning and sequential art is doing fine. People are exposed to it on a daily basis and it's well accepted.
Practically every magazine printed uses cartoons or narrated illustrations. Comic strips are still popular and enjoy success online as well as in print and book compilations.
Even comic book graphic novels and TPB collections win literary awards and hit bestseller lists like the NYTimes.
Obviously, the public is open to comic book themes and characters as the recent mega success of comics adapted to films has proved.

The appropriate creators are doing fine as far as exposure and 'fame'.

It seems the area that is suffering is the narrow area of direct-selling team/corporate produced comic pamphlets (for lack of a better term).

edit: I think auteurism is most complimentary to comics (and music), rather than film. People do it all the time and it works great.



The trouble is that the corporate pamphlet comics are where most of the non-manga market is. The great indie stuff where the real creative voices are isn't making it to the majority of comic fans.

Auteurism can only really apply in comics to people who both write and draw their projects. There are only a few writers out there who might actually fit the category, I'd say Harvey Pekar and Alan Moore are probably the closest ones.

nolanjwerner
08-03-2006, 09:03 PM
So this entire song and dance number was just for you to find some kind of personal validation in this field as an artist? Dude, if you want people to respect your concepts then pay your dues, network, gain a solid reputation, build a portfolio of published work, and then market yourself and your concepts. If you want to a piece of immortality, get to work! If you had one page of sequential artwork for every time you dropped the "auteurism" word in this thread alone, you would've already had an established portfolio.



No, it isn't just for me.

Notice that the comic market is almost impossible to break in to for new talent due to the way its set up.

Frankly its starting to look like the real way to save comics is to save them from comic fans.

kdmelrose
08-03-2006, 09:13 PM
Frankly its starting to look like the real way to save comics is to save them from comic fans.

All of these aphorisms are swell, but what does that even mean?

:huh:

Buckyrig
08-04-2006, 02:44 AM
The trouble is that the corporate pamphlet comics are where most of the non-manga market is. The great indie stuff where the real creative voices are isn't making it to the majority of comic fans..

Says who?

dano
08-04-2006, 10:20 AM
The trouble is that the corporate pamphlet comics are where most of the non-manga market is.
:laugh: where else would they be?


The great indie stuff where the real creative voices are isn't making it to the majority of comic fans. 90% of indie stuff is relatively crap. The cream that rises IS making it to the majority.


Auteurism can only really apply in comics to people who both write and draw their projects. There are only a few writers out there who might actually fit the category, I'd say Harvey Pekar and Alan Moore are probably the closest ones. CAPTAIN OBVIOUS! :laugh: There's a LOT more who can fully create their own books and those that have have seen some serious success.

Magilla1973
08-04-2006, 10:32 AM
Notice that the comic market is almost impossible to break in to for new talent due to the way its set up.

It costs less than $2,500 to break in to the comic market - less than any other industry i have ever seen. Can you please direct me to some of your work ?

dano
08-04-2006, 10:35 AM
oh yeah, its not impossible to break into due to set up. You just have to be really good.

Lovecraft13
08-04-2006, 12:43 PM
Notice that the comic market is almost impossible to break in to for new talent due to the way its set up.

Breaking in is a lot of like picking up a girl, you need confidence. If you can't taste success, please step aside. For every one person who graduates to the big four, there are hundreds of creators self-publishing and paying their dues the hard way. Plus, here's an inside tip. If you don't have confidence as an artist, learn to colour, learn to letter, learn to pre-press. Believe me, an artist doesn't get all the glory. A good letterer is everyone's best friend, and very much in demand. If you want to expand your portfolio, letter ten books, colour a couple of covers-- just do something!