The six steps to comic enlightenment - where do you put yourself?

jono_thompson 2016-07-09 07:54:38 UTC #1

In Scott McCloud's book 'Understanding Comics' he explores the concept of the path of six steps. In the book he explains how every artist, whether it be comics or another medium, follows a series of steps in the development of their work. Below is an excerpt from his book about it:

My question to the forum is this:
What do you see as the core to your comics - Form or Purpose?
And how do you see yourself along the path of steps? Focused on the surface look - or deeper into really choosing the right structure to convey you message?

For me, my journey of 10+ years of drawing comics has taken me through several steps of the path.

What first drew me to comics was the visual appeal (surface) of the comic and in turn what I created was based around on what it looked like, with minimal attention to deeper aspects to the comic.

After years of practice and developing my skills (craft) I found my comics reflecting a refinement of my skills of drawing - thus leading me to the second step of the path.

Soon I began to study the structure of comics and what I should best include, and how it should be arranged. My comics became more cohesive and composed in a way that communicated the story in the best possible way.

Later my comics explored the genre of comedy, as that was its focus - and so I looked into the best way to come up with jokes for my strips and how I would communicate them in the limited space of the comic strip.

The form of the 'gag' strip became the standard format I worked in - it was the best way for me to communicate my ideas, and was the most appealing form the comics would take.

And that brings me to the final step - which I am still exploring. What is the purpose/idea of the comic? what is my philosophy behind the comic - does it even have one?

I see my comic - Moments - as a testament to where I am on the path of steps, as there have been many changes and developments over the years of my cartooning.

ToonDoctor 2016-07-09 11:31:46 UTC #2

I think I go back and forth. It's not a linear process. For example, I have mastered panel layouts for comic books years ago. But now that I am doing a comic strip instead, I have to master that format's limits instead. So I'm back on the learning journey and experimentation.

Glad that you are self-conscious about this stuff, although I would not give so much weight to this part of McCloud's work. It's a best a theory or a framework. Art educators may have something different to say about this process.

jono_thompson 2016-07-09 11:40:24 UTC #3

@ToonDoctor this is one of the things I love about Scott McCloud's work, is that he looks into theories/frameworks behind comics - something not many other practicing cartoonists do.

ToonDoctor 2016-07-09 12:26:43 UTC #4

McCloud's theories on the form of comics - sequential art, closure, pacing, visual rhetoric, abstraction, and transitions between panels are better developed and more sustained inquiries than all of his wishy washy art theory stuff. This theory and the one about the types of creators is less useful for creators learning how to make comics. As a university instructor, I skip all of the wishy washy theories and tell students to read this stuff only if they want to but I do not cover it at all. It is based on weak research and problem statements. There is scant ethos used. On whose literature has he built this theory of art creation? Who inspired his musings? How can we measure and study the work of creators?

His other work actually reflects canon and research done in similar fields. But this part of his contribution is in my evaluation, fairly weak stuff.

But if you like it, all power to you!

shazzbaa 2016-07-09 15:57:11 UTC #5

I agree with both to some extent; I really love McCloud's work a lot, but I think I agree that some of his work is sharing research and observation, and some of it is philosophy. I still respect the philosophy, myself -- I don't think philosophy becomes less useful when you disagree with it, but it's most useful to think of it as a philosophy rather than an absolute statement!

The problem with the "where do you see yourself" question, as I see it, is that the excerpt presents some aspects as inherently superior -- a work focused on polish above all else described as "hollow," a work where form is more important than purpose described as "artificial." Thus you end up with a question that's about as useful as "how mature are you?" -- a question that's useful to ponder for yourself, but it's almost impossible to get an accurate answer when you're asking it publicly, and if you respond "oh, I think I'm very mature!" it, well, carries very little weight.

Plus I don't totally agree with the idea that deeply considering your purpose makes a work better or more mature. It depends; for some creators it's an important step, for others it's irrelevant navel-gazing that gets in the way!

indagold 2016-07-09 18:29:52 UTC #6

I know Scott is great at discussing the comic medium and how it's made but the rest becomes a philosophy that not everyone shares. I certainly don't so it's really a subjective thing.
Also @ToonDoctor you sound like a great teacher. My cartooning course I took we were just expected to accept Scott's work as law and not question it as with a lot of other work as well.

sarrowsmith10 2016-07-10 03:40:10 UTC #7

So I tried to read this comic, but the text is so dang tiny, it was next to impossible.

Honestly, it sounds like he is overthinking it. I certainly don't work in steps like this. I set out to do a piece of work and I do it. Sometimes the work is deep, sometimes its not. Sometimes, someone is paying for the work, and I want a paycheck. Not everything in art needs to be formulaic or follow some theory.

Most artists just create. They have an idea, or assignment, or commission, or job or whatever, and they set out to create the piece. Some pieces require more thinking, more research, more technical skill than others. Just because someone decides to do a 2 panel slice of life comic with stick figures (XKCD, or Cyanide and Happiness anyone?) doesn't make them more or less mature than someone creating the next Rembrandt.

jono_thompson 2016-07-10 03:58:08 UTC #8

At the end of the day, it's just a theory - Scott McCloud's books are very much filled with ideas/theories that are just designed to help the comic artists explore what comic creation means to the artist.

El_Psy_Congroo 2016-07-10 06:04:42 UTC #9

@sarrowsmith10 it is pretty tiny, I had to right click and hit VIEW IMAGE to read it.

I've never read McCloud and I'm not sure if I understand all of his "philosophy" from these excerpts enough to say I agree or disagree entirely. I suppose I'm so early in that I'm doing varying amounts of all 6 steps, but again, I might formulate this differently.

I feel that the importance he's given to purpose and philosophy seems to come across as overly artsy and pompous. But I think the idea of it being the "core" of a work of art does make sense because you can take a message, an idea, or philosophy and you can wrap it around any medium or structure. You can convey the same idea in a book or movie. I wouldn't say its more important or special, than say technical craftsmanship, just more basic in the sense that it affects someone who looks at your work at a deeper level than how visually interesting it is, or how good your use of language is.

It doesn't mean every comic or work of art requires philosophical rumination, some people just "do it for fun", certainly. But I think that even when you don't think about what philosophies or outlooks drive or come across in your work it doesn't mean they aren't there. We all subconsciously weave the way we think into what we do. Having a self awareness of the ideas expressed by you and your work allows you to focus and direct your energies more productively towards expressing those ideas, the same way actively observing your own technical skills (drawing, writing, etc) and those of others will help improve your craft. It might even make you rethink certain things and you might find yourself exploring territory you otherwise would not have.

Again, you shouldn't feel your work should be the next Shakespeare and you don't have to ponder why you do what you do. But if you are serious about improving in all aspects of your art as much as possible, I do believe it is an aspect you shouldn't overlook because it might affect all the other "outer" aspects.

@ToonDoctor

I'm studying to be a linguist (and I'm a bit of a nerd) so I get the idea of empirical research like that of Neil Cohn, but I don't know much about art theory and I kind of sense that McCloud may just be basing this only on his personal experience. I'm not sure I find philosophy based on personal experience necessarily bad and I was wondering what kind of research do you think would not make this part of his theory "fairly weak stuff"?

ToonDoctor 2016-07-11 03:16:31 UTC #10

@indagold thank you very much for the compliment! I try to be a good teacher!

@El_Psy_Congroo some of the problems with this aspect of McCloud's work is the relationship of the artist with the work and his/her environment. How does the work, the artist, and the environment influence how the artist creates. There are so many factors that can intervene besides the artist focusing on pure creation. For example, if you're running out of watercolours you may experiment with a technique that will save maximize how you use colours to paint your comic. Let's say that you run out of red. Well maybe a whole sequence will be painted green. Art critics may interpret that as the creator going through a phase or something or experiencing an aspect of their inner emotional world! But in reality, it's just a trick to get by without the colour red!

McCloud's theory feels almost absolute. Things rarely are in art creation as we all know. So many things intervene in how we create comics or other types of art that have nothing to do with the quest of the artist to master his skills and express himself/herself!

For McCloud's theory to be verified, we would have to survey or observe cartoonists at work. Ask them how they proceed to create their work. But the answers we would get may only reflect the conscious part of the work of the cartoonist. Typical social science research problems! The categories he created are so fluid and personal that they are almost impossible to measure.

Then McCloud's theory seem based on nothing written about how creators create work. There is a wide literature about this. He just suggested his thing. Now it has become part of the literature which is ironic.