Oct 21 2007

Know Thy Comics

Understanding ComicsThe Summary Report
Scott McCloud‘s Understanding Comics is a well thought out treatise whose subject matter also happens to be its own vehicle of conveyance, i.e., in order to discuss comics he writes and draws in comics format.

The Demographic Report
This book is for anyone who is interested in understanding some of the craft and artistic aesthetics behind the genre of comics. It would also be quite useful for those whose profession relies on conveying information through a visual medium such as graphic design or filmmaking.

The Minority Report
Although this is primarily an overview of comics as they have developed in the US, on certain levels, his work is about giving voice to the underdog. The primary underdog in this case is the medium of comics itself as an under-appreciated art form. And under this underdog there are more underdogs in the way of underrepresented creators and their content which don’t embody the market dominant tendencies towards the superhero genre occupied primarily with white adolescent male power fantasies.

The Review
If one could write a thesis dissertation on comics in the selfsame medium it discussed, one might end up with an impressive work like Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics. His work is an essential guidebook to illuminate the field of comics for both newcomers and veterans alike.

To finish his book results in a heightened state of awareness akin to a student having completed a first film class. Where before said student had probably watched “movies” as a passive recipient, now the same elucidated student approaches “films” with a critically informed eye, taking into account such stylistic choices as camera angles, mise-en-scene, and editing, in addition to the historical context that may inform the work. That same kind of transformation is what McCloud offers to the reader when looking at comics, a visual language sharing some kinship with film, yet with properties wholly unique unto itself.

He begins by doing what any good treatise should do, get a basic definition of his subject matter and then begin to build an argument based on a premise about said subject. In the way of that basic definition of comics, we get: “Juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence, intended to convey information and/or an aesthetic response in the viewer.” Or to save both memory and lung capacity, more simply put: “Sequential art.”

And in his premise, Mr. McCloud smartly realizes he is not necessarily preaching to the converted, so his premise essentially states that comics is an under-appreciated art form (if even acknowledged as art in the first place) that certainly deserves its own standing against established art forms such as music, film, and literature. In order to argue the point throughout, the author gives us nine well organized chapters of outstanding background information and analyses. Sensibly, after the definition and premise are set, he offers a historical overview of comics, which helps build the crucial momentum of credibility.

And he doesn’t stop there. After setting up some of the basics in the psychology of perception, we’re off to a very fun illustrated breakdown of the stylistic and structural conventions of comics, everything from the strategic use of speech balloons to an artist’s brush strokes or ink lines to established artists to the all-important breakdown of how panels (a structure unique to the medium) work in comics.

The one ostensible weakness that the book has (which ultimately may be forgivable given the scope of the overall work) is the short shrift given to the discussion of differences in Europe’s and Japan’s comics. He does highlight some qualitative difference in their respective visual and narrative sensibilities, but not enough for a reader to get a sense of comics history and aesthetics on a global (versus merely North American) scale.

Furthermore, although the book ages quite well (it was first published in 1994), it might behoove Mr. McCloud to write a second edition update that reflects the growing popularity of manga (Japanese comics) within the US.

Still, taken in its entirety, Mr. McCloud’s book is an impressively thorough contemplation on the genre of comics. It is an ideal primer for people who are unfamiliar with comics, and even for those who have greater familiarity with comics will find it to be an invaluable primary resource. For reader and creator alike, this is a must have book for your library.

Product Details:

  • Title: Understanding Art: The Invisible Art
  • Author: Scott McCloud (writer/illustrator)
  • Paperback: 224 pages
  • Publisher: Harper Paperbacks (April 27, 1994)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 006097625X
  • ISBN-13: 978-0060976255
  • Product Dimensions: 10 x 6.7 x 0.6 inches

Be the first to comment

Oct 12 2007

Acquiring Tastes

Fruits and VegetablesMy mother used to say to me, “a picky eater is a sign of a closed mind.” Usually this pithy statement would accompany her attempts to compel my childhood self into overcoming my obstinate distaste for foods involving onions, fish, or Chinese cuisine in general.

The phrase also seemed to serve as an informal litmus test for her to assess the character of people in general whenever she had a chance to observe them eat. That didn’t bode well for a significant portion of the human population….

Back then, you’d sooner change water into wine than convince me to consume any form of the onion, be it served raw in a salad, fried with batter, diced into a stew or sauce, or grilled on a kebab.

In fact, it was not an uncommon ritual on spaghetti night with the Pontees when I would ask with all the petulant vehemence of an inquisition, “Are there any onions in this?” to which my mother would evenly reply, “No, there are no onions.” “Are you sure?” “Yes, positive.”

Being a precocious child cynic, I had always half-suspected that she was being less than forthcoming about the presence of onions despite her claims to the contrary, and it was only years later that I received full disclosure about spaghetti night: my mother would frequently mince onions to the point of textural oblivion in order to blend it into the sauce.

I’m happy to report that well into my adult years my tastes have evolved to the the point where it is unthinkable for me to neglect the use of sautéed onions in preparation of tomato sauce. I’ll even enjoy the occasional savory red onion in my panzanella salad.

Unfortunately, I’m not sure I can entirely credit my mother’s clandestine insurrection against my fascist taste buds. Being open to food, after all, requires voluntary choice. Point in fact, I actually recall the significant turning point for me on the stance of onions.

It was in my college years (yes, it took me that long to come around to onions) when I was first living in a private apartment after a freshman year in the dormitories. A fellow Korean American student had shown me a easy-to-make dinner in the way of broiling a briskly seasoned steak (salt, pepper, and garlic) with a few sliced onions thrown on top. Eating what was probably my own first attempt at cooking (outside of a home economics class way back in middle school), the meal turned out to be pretty tasty.

Perhaps this transformation of taste was due in part to a desire for something beyond the college cafeteria food experience and in part to the fact that this particular meal, onions included, involved the validation of personal choice and pride in personal initiative to prepare this dish.

What I took for granted as a child regarding the special effort that went into my mother’s cooking I could now only retroactively appreciate with this new hindsight, having joined the ranks of food preparation.

Fish is still a work in progress: I feel I don’t eat enough of it, although I have gotten better over the years. I hadn’t even acquired a taste for sashimi or sushi until my mid-twenties.

In that change I owe to a staff outing of teachers when I was teaching English in Seoul, South Korea. As the high school where I was a teacher was fitting the bill, I didn’t want to appear an ungracious guest and took a couple bracing swigs of soju (a strong Korean alcohol derived from potato and various grains that I would argue foregos taste in favor of simply trying to knock you flat on your face) and dug into my first round of sashimi, Japanese cuisine in the heart of South Korea.

I’ve been a convert ever since, and not necessarily with the stupor of an alcohol-induced fervor.

However, I don’t eat enough of fish in general, and I still have a lot of misgivings about shellfish. Why the clammy primordial residue of goo that constitutes oysters on the half-shell constitutes a delicacy still continues to allude me. And boiled mussels with their silent gaping mouths and orange-hued “tongues” seem to have a knack for making my stomach queasy.

As for my sadly misguided anti-Chinese food campaign, I think it must have been a phase I was going through when I was about ten years old. It’s embarrassing to recall, but I remember occasions where I insisted on stopping by McDonald’s before going into any Chinese restaurant. Egad, if I could just have five minutes with that kid of yesteryear…. Knowing better now, between a choice of McDonald’s and a good Chinese restaurant, the Chinese restaurant will win hands down every time.

However, I was gratified to know that I wasn’t alone among the ranks of finicky eaters. In “Picky Eaters? They Get It From You,” The New York Times article cites research that actually attributes 78% of our finickiness to genetics and 22% to environmental factors. Such a stark numerical breakdown hardly allows for the romance of taste, but it presents an interesting dilemma. If so much of our finickiness is genetically predisposed, how to we grow out of it?

Although a genetic component exists, it does not let us finicky eaters completely off the hook, as Patricia Pliner, a social psychology professor at the University of Toronto had reminded readers of the NYT article that biology is not destiny (my emphasis).

So how does this all relate back to that pithy, if seemingly ominous, phrase coined by my mother that “a picky eater is a sign of a closed mind”? I had mentioned in an earlier posting entitled “Always the Penumbra,” that just because one partakes in the cuisine of a given culture does not necessarily make one an ambassador to that culture, e.g., eating sushi or sashimi does not necessarily guarantee my sensitivity to Japanese culture as a whole.

But if we can introduce ourselves to new cultures through food, it is at least a good start, but it certainly shouldn’t be the final destination. Keeping an open mind to different cultures is about making choices that will expose one to new environments, new sensations, and new ways of thinking.

Speaking beyond just food in terms of cultural experiences, some experiences may be instantly enjoyable, others may be an acquired taste, while others still may yet be inaccessible or even unwanted, but at least the effort and intent are present. And for people to come around, sometimes it requires a little patience, i.e., if I can learn to eat onions, fish, and Chinese food, there may yet be hope in the world.

I would love to hear responses from readers about their own stories of heretofore unfamiliar or formerly unwanted foods or ethnic cuisines. What did you learn with the introduction of this new food as it pertains to the culture providing it, and more importantly, what did you learn about yourself?

4 comments so far

Oct 08 2007

Eye on Jackson Heights, NYC

If New York City has a reputation for being one of the most diverse places on the planet, then one could make a strong argument that its borough of Queens is a significant contributing factor.

Just take a look at this list below with a percentage breakdown by ethnicity of Queens relative to the other boroughs of New York City based on my findings within the State & County QuickFacts site of the U.S. Census Bureau. You’ll note that Queens has a more even distribution of major ethnic groups (the Census Bureau uses the term “race”) in the comparison among counties, i.e., boroughs).

New York City Data Set from US Census Bureau (2005)

Queens County (Queens Borough)

  • White : 55.1%
  • Black : 21.1%
  • American Indian and Alaska Native : 0.7%
  • Asian : 20.9%
  • Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander : 0.1%
  • Persons reporting two or more races : 2.1%
  • Persons of Hispanic or Latino : 26.1%
  • White persons not Hispanic : 31.7%

New York County (Manhattan Borough)

  • White : 66.5%
  • Black : 19.8%
  • American Indian and Alaska Native : 0.7%
  • Asian : 10.7%
  • Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander : 0.1%
  • Persons reporting two or more races : 2.2%
  • Persons of Hispanic or Latino : 25.9%
  • White persons not Hispanic : 47.7%

Bronx County (Bronx Borough)

  • White : 49.6%
  • Black : 42.5%
  • American Indian and Alaska Native : 1.2%
  • Asian : 3.4%
  • Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander : 0.5%
  • Persons reporting two or more races : 2.8%
  • Persons of Hispanic or Latino : 51.3%
  • White persons not Hispanic : 13.1%

Kings County (Brooklyn Borough)

  • White : 50.6%
  • Black : 38.3%
  • American Indian and Alaska Native : 0.5%
  • Asian : 8.9%
  • Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander : 0.1%
  • Persons reporting two or more races :1.5%
  • Persons of Hispanic or Latino : 9.9%
  • White persons not Hispanic : 35.6%

Richmond County (Staten Island Borough)

  • White : 80.3%
  • Black : 10.8%
  • American Indian and Alaska Native : 0.3%
  • Asian : 7.2%
  • Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander : 0.1%
  • Persons reporting two or more races : 1.3%
  • Persons of Hispanic or Latino : 14.6%
  • White persons not Hispanic : 67.9%

If you’re wondering why the numbers don’t add up to a 100%, the Census Bureau considers the designation of “Hispanic” to potentially belong to any race, so it is included in applicable race categories. Also, certain respondents reported to more than one race category.

Why do I bring all of this up, and single out Queens in particular? Well, I sometimes come across the perception, either overt or unconscious, from residents and visitors alike, that Manhattan is synonymous with the name New York City. It obscures the fact that Manhattan is just one of five boroughs that make up New York City.

Granted, Manhattan is a rather impressive chunk of island real estate. It is a juggernaut engine for the arts, culture, finance, cuisine, and real estate, but its energy derives not just from within but from the surrounding denizens of the tri-state area that commute in and out every day like a million pistons (not to mention people from all over the world). To extend upon the venerable poet and preacher John Donne’s phrasing “no man is an island,” I would further compound that no island is truly an island…figuratively speaking.

And yet still, some ostensibly worldly Manhattanites have been known to refer to those residents who must commute into “the city” (in pursuit of diversion or duty ) with the pejorative term “the bridge and tunnel crowd” (bridge and tunnels being the primary means of access to the island of Manhattan from the surrounding area).

It smacks of specious elitism at best, ugly bigotry at worst. Those who use the phrase might claim it is a distinction of class rather than ethnicity; but in our social reality, they often sadly become one and the same—and really, are such prejudices on either ground a remotely palatable humanistic outlook?

At the other extreme, I’ve had young students from more socioeconomically challenged neighborhoods throughout NYC take pride in a certain “street cred” that derives from claiming to hail from certain neighborhoods in the boroughs of Bronx, Manhattan, and Brooklyn. I was amused though slightly chagrined to learn that no such cool factor was afforded to any resident of either Queens or Staten Island, although I would wager there were very different reasons for these two boroughs.

Part of the identity of Queens owes itself to a substantial immigrant culture, and State Island is just very very white (refer back to the statistics above). But in my students’ delineation of what’s cool and what’s not by localized boundaries, they draw a curious parallel to the perceptions of those Manhattan elite who deride those from the “outer” boroughs (and New Jersey). They have bought into the myth of their own locality, not considering that other neighborhoods may offer something of unique cultural value.

New York City is a glorious manifestation of people from a dizzying array of socioeconomic, professional, and cultural backgrounds. What would you have if you cut off the boroughs from one another and the surrounding tri-state area? Well, eventually, on a literal level, you would get starving populations slowly becoming mired in their own accumulated squalor, excepting the Bronx which is the only borough contiguous with the U.S. mainland.

But the states of hunger and squalor operate figuratively in terms of a dearth in cultural diversity and in terms of moral obsolescence respectively. Every community has something to offer, which is why I will do my best to write an ongoing segment devoted to my own neighborhood, Jackson Heights, Queens, arguably one of the most diverse neighborhoods in the United States, if not the world.

Jackson Heights fascinates me as a paradigm for those marginalized in their multiculturalism, just as Manhattan to me often represents a high order of status and power that sometimes forget the little guys that work so hard make it look so good.

In Jackson Heights, you will find in the span of roughly .8 square miles a panoply of ethnic cultures. From the Asian demographic comes immigrants from Bangladesh, China, Korea, India, Pakistan, and the Philippines; from the European demographic comes multigenerational descendents of Irish, Jewish, Italian, Polish, and Russian heritage; and from the Latino demographic comes immigrants from Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico, and Uruguay. There is also a distinctive pocket in the way of a gay community amidst this huddle of immigrants.

Given the wealth of material stemming from this paradigm for the United States, a country built on immigration, I’m sure I’ll find plenty to relay in the future in keeping my eye on Jackson Heights.

 

4 comments so far

« Prev - Next »