Sequart #18: Other Media

A few years back, the Comics Journal published a list of the top 100 english-language comics of the 20th century. That list produced a lot of controversy because a number of the works included didn't exactly conform to what the average person thought of as comics. That meant material like editorial cartoons, sketchbooks, caricatures, woodcut books, and single-panel magazine cartoons. Attempts at analyzing and narrowing comics' scope like in Scott McCloud's UNDERSTANDING COMICS often have the side effect of unnecessarily restricting what the art form can be. For example, McCloud insists that comics must have more than one panel because by his definition, comics show the passage of time. Comics writer RC Harvey insists that its core lies in the the combination of words and images; if it doesn't have both, it's not comics. One of my favorite cartoonists, Kurt Wolfgang, wrote a send-up of this notion in a story called "What The Fuck Is A Mini-Comic?" Playing a McCloud-type character, he tries to narrow down exactly what makes up a mini, only to be shouted down by his audience, poking holes in his theory. He winds up with this definition: "You know 'em when you see 'em!"

I think this point can be made about comics in general. One can tell the difference between a comic of some kind, versus say, an illustrated book or a painting that mixes words and pictures. One can just understand it intuitively, even when it's not clearly a narrative (like Al Hirschfeld's caricatures). There are certainly works that blur the line between comics and painting, or comics and illustration, or comics and books. But why not make the tent broad? That more open approach allows for idiosyncratic works to be considered as comics, which only enriches our understanding of the art. Furthermore, the tradition of comics being a part of other media is a long one, and it's intriguing to see how this tradition has evolved.

I've recently received three completely different publications. One is an aggressively eclectic magazine called MSTRMND which both contains comics and is clearly influenced by a comics aesthetic. Another is a free magazine by a new publisher called COMICS COMICS, which celebrates and critiques comics both past and present. The last is an issue of BIG ORBIT COMICS, focusing on the author's career as an animator. The strips and jokes therein are unapologetically specific to his trade, which gives them an odd charm for an outsider. The aesthetics particular to each of the three publications is not necessarily mine, but they're so earnest and relentless in presenting their own point of view that they're compelling reads (in differing degrees) in their own ways.

Let's look at the first two issues of mstrmnd edited by Kevin McLeod and published out of New York. It doesn't take long to figure out that this magazine is about design that pushes the envelope. While the content is meaty and thought-provoking, it's clear that the magazine's look is its most important aspect. My favorite piece was a subway map that cleverly combined subway lines from several major world cities into one map that was both beautiful to look at and made a weird kind of sense. What I find particularly compelling about MSTRMND is that it's as concerned with dissecting the past as it is in talking about the future. You might find an article about a proposed Museum of American Slavery on the national mall in Washington, DC after a detailed exegesis of the Matrix trilogy; or an excerpt from an old HM Stanley book deconstructed by a modern writer after a report on waste tornadoes of the Pacific. The magazine is concerned with politics, ecology, role playing, philosophy and beauty.

While it's unpredictable in terms of content, certain patterns do emerge. The second issue is less linear than the first, with more of a visual than textual focus. That new/old tension is still in evidence, with a photo essay on the 1936 Berlin Olympics and another photo essay about a Halloween party in Detroit. Really, the primary common thread between the two issues is a continuing comic strip called "Wooden Mirror". Written by the editor, the story is a weird mix of genre styles, as a young caucasian boy, aggressive asian young woman, and older African-American man are on a sort of quest to find and use a wooden mirror. There's no exposition, just characters dropped in the middle of a violent situation. Fake ads that begin the episodes (including one for Hanso swords) add to the sense that the stories are a recapitulation and remix of action genres in general. What's disappointing about the stories is that the visuals are pedestrian and conservative, compared to both the ideas in the story and the magazine in general. In MSTRMND, the visuals are bold and imaginative, which makes the comic look almost quaint, like the visuals from the Stanley stories he reprints. I'm not sure if this is a deliberate approach, but the look of the comics doesn't fit in with the rest of the publication. Regardless, the fact that you can't pin the publication down makes it especially compelling to re-read, and I find something new that catches my eye each time.

It'll be interesting to see how this serial evolves as the magazine continues to mutate in other directions. "Conservative" is certainly something you can't accuse COMICS COMICS of being. It's spearheaded by Picturebox's publisher Dan Nadel, also known as the force behind the art/comics publication the Ganzfeld. Picturebox has published a book called BJ AND DA DOGS by Paper Rad, as well as ART OUT OF TIME: UNKNOWN VISIONARY CARTOONISTS. Nadel is interested in work on the margins of comics, often of the outsider artist variety. Paper Rad (consisting of Jessica Ciocci and the infinitely strange work of Ben Jones) is a perfect example of this aesthetic. Their work leaves few on the fence: some consider it brilliant, hilarious and totally original, while others are baffled at its appeal. While I tend to be in the latter camp, I have respect for the total commitment to their own individual vision and aesthetic that Paper Rad evinces. COMICS COMICS is a beautiful display of Nadel's other interest: discussing these sort of comics. Paper Rad starts things off with an essay written in the style of a George W Bush speech that winds up declaring Scott McCloud and Matt Madden as enemies of true comics experimentation. Legendary cartoonist Mark Newgarden kicks in a few comics of his own, and there are profiles of Ciocci, Matthew Thurber and Wally Wood.

This fascination with the margins of not just today's comics but of the whole of comics' history is what makes this such a stimulating read. The Wood essay discusses the specifics of his aesthetic (which Nadel dubs the Frozen Moments School of Comics) and compares it to his contemporary, Ogden Whitney. While both are critiqued, often harshly, the evaluation is fair and Nadel's observations are incisive and lead to new revelations about these artists. The rest of this issue is taken up with reviews. The most interesting is by the co-editor of COMICS COMICS, Timothy Hodler. He reviews THE DICK AYERS STORY, a 3-volume comics autobiography of an artist active since the Golden Age. I read these when they came out last year and was fascinated by them. Ayers was known for being able to draw just about anything but was never a writer, and it showed in this attempt to write about himself. But he holds little back in his narrative (even if it doesn't make sense at times or repeats stories), and Hodler picks up on what made it such a unique work. Moreover, he correctly notes that few people reviewed or even noticed it. The fact that COMICS COMICS exists to fill this gap is welcome indeed.

The other reviews range from new comics to Golden Age reprints. It's mostly concerned with books the authors find personally compelling (while taking occasional shots at others, like PERSEPOLIS' Marjane Satrapi). While I didn't necessarily agree with much of what was written in this publication, there's nothing else like it out there. It's a wonderful projection of the force of will of its participants and their sheer love of comics. That can only be a good thing, and I can't wait to see what happens next.

One thing that interests me are comics artists with other creative dayjobs. In particular, there seems to be a big wave at the moment of animators who also draw comics. Mike Fisher is one such artist. While the general concerns in his animation revolve around science-fiction tropes, BIG ORBIT COMICS #8 is about animation itself. Through his 3-D Pete character, he talks about trying to find time to do his own independent animation, dealing with criticism, struggling with computer manuals, making deadlines for animation festivals, using the newest tricks and techniques (sometimes at the expense of his narratives) in animation, showing his cartoons in front of near-empty rooms, etc. It reminds me a bit of Justin Green's SIGN GAME strips: it's aimed at a sympathetic and knowledgable audience and has enough wit and verve to make it amusing for a general audience. While I must admit that I don't have much interest in his actual animation, this little humorous behind-the-scenes look at his life and career (filtered carefully through a fictional character) was a pleasant read. Like in the other works discussed above, the sheer enthusiasm Fisher has for his craft burst through the pages and forces attention from the reader.

As a writer and critic who usually selects the material I choose to write about, it was a welcome and interesting challenge to immerse myself in the different points of view from each of these works. In particular, it was exciting to see works that differed not just in subject matter but in form from what I usually discuss. Independent comics cover a lot of territory, and that territory just continues to expand.

Sequart Reprints: Comics Comics

COMICS COMICS is a publication that's a direct extension of its editors' interests. Dan Nadel's PictureBox is a publishing concern that's all about the margins of comics, works that are hard to classify. Like everything else Nadel publishes, COMICS COMICS is an expression of his love of comics and a manifestation of his desire to examine the medium with a fresh eye. There are few preconceived notions in COMICS COMICS, as the writers take on a dizzying range of what comics have to offer.

The first issue of COMICS COMICS was in a smallish magazine-style format. The second and third issues were printed on huge, 16" x 22" newspaper broadsheets. It's a format that's both a throwback to the newsprint era of comics and something that no one else is doing at the moment. Pragmatically, it's an ideal format since it allows full-page strips to be published in all their glory.

The best quality of COMICS COMICS is that one can enjoy it even when its articles or comics don't match up with one's aesthetic. For example, issue #2 features an extensive interview with P.Shaw, an artist whose work has never interested me. Nadel's line of questioning was revealing and gave me an appreciation for the artist I hadn't had before. In particular, Shaw's varying artistic approaches weren't just employed for technical reasons, but actively reflected his social and political interests as well.

On the other hand, there are times when reading it when it feels like the features were done exclusively for me. Tim Hodler's 2-part retrospective on Steve Gerber's career is a good example. Hodler's an exemplar of COMICS COMICS' willingness to dip into mainstream comics and emerge with unusual examples of expression. Gerber's weird work for Marvel is a perfect case for this sort of treatment. Hodler came to Gerber's comics as a new reader and he's quite perceptive in discussing the kind of bizarre muddle that marked them. Gerber was not always successful, but he was always willing to experiment and push the limits of mainstream comics.

Hodler was perceptive in identifying THE DEFENDERS as Gerber's most successful comic. It wasn't just because of the absurd situations the characters found themselves in and the way Gerber played it straight, but also because of Gerber's palpable sense of anger on the page. The comics were never didactic but were rather consumed by Gerber's sense of righteous indignation over corporate greed, commercial crassness and ecological destruction. Hodler also notes that while Gerber's comics were never massively successful, they touched a chord in readers who had never seen comics like these before and identified with Gerber's anger. Of course, the absurd elements were another part of the attraction; one never knew what was coming next in a Gerber comic, even though he had to hew to a mainstream formula. The only problem with the essay was that it was too short; I would have loved to have read his thoughts on Gerbers' other work.
Issue #2 has comics work by some of my favorite artists. Lauren Weinstein did a bizarre page reminiscent of her earlier, Vineyland-era work. One of my favorite underground artists, Justin Green, contributed an amazing, full-page "perpetual calendar" reflecting the months of the year as a sort of mobius-strip roller-coaster.

COMICS COMICS also likes to print rants, ravings and personal statements by well-known artists. Issue #2 featured a rant on Spider-Man by Peter Bagge, filled with blustery Bagge-isms that were hilarious. Issue #3 had a loopy essay on the meaning of life by Kim Deitch which was just short of incoherent, but still amusing. Nadel's own rant on the Masters of American Comics show was cutting and direct. He attacked the show in terms of how they chose the artists for the new canon, context for the audience and a lack of proper critical analysis. When he wonders why Lionel Feininger (a fine artist who did some comics) and Art Spiegelman (with only one significant work, though a great one, to his name as an artist) made it in, he answers his own question later in the article: because these are artists that the general art-audience will recognize their names. The show was a failure, because the curators didn't have enough faith in comics to present a show that was on comics' own terms—not the terms of the art world.

Overall, I found #2 more interesting than #3. The reviews were of a wider (and weirder) range of comics, including Dave Sim's letters, Wally Wood's CANNON, Golden Age Fred Kida comics, Moebius, and some things from other odd corners of the world of comics. Whereas the comics and books reviewed in #3 could have appeared in an issue of THE COMICS JOURNAL, like Doug Wolk's book on comics, assorted David Sandlin comics, Mutt and Jeff and some recent superhero comics. The reviews felt a bit less personal and much more perfunctory in this issue. The exception was Frank Santoro's mini-essay on Frank Miller's RONIN. Santoro noted that this was Miller's most successful work, one where he broke through his influences. Santoro also contributed an essay on color in comics in #2 that's interesting because it's from an artist's point of view.

The most disappointing article in #3 was Sammy Harkham's interview with Guy Davis. It felt more like an interview one might find in COMIC BOOK ARTIST than in COMICS COMICS, withDavis not having much of substance to talk about. That it was so dull was especially surprising because I generally like interviews conducted by artists, but this one was a had too much nuts-and-bolts methodology and not enough insight into the creative process. On the other hand, the transcript of a talk between Lauren Weinstein & David Heatley was enlightening both in terms of how they make their comics, but why. Both artists do autobiographical comics, but Weinstein discussed how many fictive elements she uses in her work to make her stories coherent. Heatley noted that he prefers to make his "David" character more of a blank slate, choosing to convey emotional truths and moods rather than worry about presenting himself as a character. Despite the fact that this is a transcript of an event with a time limit rather than a proper interview, both artists wasted little time in revealing interesting information.

Even if a feature falls flat, COMICS COMICS adeptly destroys the line between high and low in the comics art form. As appealing as the articles are, I'm drawn just as much to the ephemera: little side illustrations that often sardonically comment on the articles themselves, or odd little lists by the likes of Mark Newgarden. The ultimate mark of COMICS COMICS is that I can hand it to any comics fan, and no matter their interests or depth of knowledge, they will both learn something new and have an established belief challenged.

The Imprint of Personality: Comics Comics and Mineshaft

Rob reviews the latest issues of the comics-related publications COMICS COMICS(#4) and MINESHAFT (#23).

COMICS COMICS' mission of examining things not quite on the beaten path means that the reader is exposed to some odd items that they may not have been aware of or even actively avoided. What I like best about COMICS COMICS is the way it reflects the personalities of its three main guiding lights. It's at its best when it's simply an outlet for Tim Hodler, who has become one of the best of all comics critics. He not only fully engages a work on its own terms, he is also able to articulate the nature of that engagement with a great deal of clarity and style. Frank Santoro is considerably less precise in the way he describes what interests him, but his sheer enthusiasm for a particular kind of aesthetic is so powerful that it sweeps the reader along. Ringleader Dan Nadel has an endearingly cranky print persona.

While I cringed when Nadel started to rant about comics needing to be "dirtier", I was delighted that he published his initial material on Woody Gelman, the patron of Topps who gave a lot of work to Robert Crumb and Art Spiegelman, among others. Nadel is dead-on when he describes Gelman's hidden but crucial role in comics history, both in terms of his patronage of two giant talents and the actual influence of the products themselves as subversive cultural artifacts. Their nature was entirely disposable, yet they had a sort of cumulative cultural weight. They provided an outlet for jokes, weirdness and imagery that delighted but did not condescend to children. Gelman was that sort of in-between figure that could make this happen; he was a collector with an affinity for underground culture, and he immediately recognized Crumb and Spiegelman as harbingers of a new underground. He was an emissary of a corporation yet had no hesitancy to employ underground artists; indeed, he viewed them as his most valuable contributors. I hope Nadel continues to pursue this study, perhaps in an upcoming issue of COMIC ART.

Hodler took on two of comics' biggest iconoclasts with his reviews in Steve Ditko and Dave Sim. Hodler obviously came in with preconceptions about both artists, yet fairly engaged their most recent works. He praised their innovations in projects that failed to work on other levels. He also heaped scorn on their didacticism, especially when it was built on a foundation of disingenuousness as in Sim's JUDENHASS. Hodler rightly calls Sim on the way he used out-of-context quotes from famous people to build up his historical anti-Semitism claims. Sim needn't have gilded the lily by quoting Mark Twain out of context if he wanted to find such evidence. Hodler's other review, an epic outline of Kentaro Miura's BERSERK, laid out an compelling csse as to why and how the series' ultra-violent, hypersexualized and adolescent qualities in fact had layers of subtext that only paid off as the story revealed itself.

Santoro provides the voice and viewpoint of the artist in COMICS COMICS, and it's a forceful and idiosyncratic one. I loved the way he and Nadel broke down an old Ogden Whitney page; I felt like I had genuinely learned something after studying what they wrote. His introduction to his interview with British artist Shaky Kane is a bit all over the place (much like his writing in general), yet it snaps back to its main, forceful ideas unexpectedly after each digression. More than anything, one can feel the enormously powerful passion Santoro has for comics and the entire breadth and width of its history, embracing artists and comics that are often ignored by fans of alt-comics. The interview itself felt a bit perfunctory in comparison. It was too short to really delve into the artist, but some of the questions asked felt more like particular technical points Santoro wanted to know about to satisfy his own curiousity rather than questions designed to bring clarity to a wider audience.

Joe "Jog" McCulloch's article on Gerald Jablonski's comics was delightful. I'm generally resistant to reviews that focus on how a comic made them feel at a given time of their life, but Jog takes that basic structure and fully engages and breaks down the utterly loopy nature of Jablonski's comics. As always, the comics solicited for this issue were excellent and looked great on the huge (something like 21x17") broadsheet format. I wish all of Dan Zettwoch's comics could be printed in this format, given the crazy amount of detail he includes in his strips. There was another page by an uncredited artist (Ted May?) that also took advantage of the sheer size of the page with a cleverly designed adaptation of Poe's "The Masque Of the Red Death".

Having read a number of issues of MINESHAFT now, what I like best about it is the organic nature of its construction. It started as a place for Everett Rand to publish images of underground art that he owned, and snowballed into a place where a certain generation of comics creators started to submit new work. It's become a depository for fascinating fiction and cultural critiques that don't have a ready home, fascinating presentations of historical cultural detritus worthy of another look, and of course lots of sketches and comics.

This issue was actually more comics-heavy than some recent volumes. Sarah Sveda and Ed Piskor (not an underground artist, but he certainly carries that vibe to his work). Their "Grob Schwank" series, written by Sveda, was absolutely hilarious and disgusting. Piskor's art looked a little like Jack Davis' here as he brought that MAD feel to his exaggerated figures and gestures in a story about a pervert gynecologist. Aaron Lange's "Washington Beach", a sort of send-up of Archie Comics by way of The Hills was both cleverly designed and pleasantly smart-assed. Frank Stack's latest "Dirty Diana" is more of the same over-the-top adventure serial silliness, done in his usual loose, sketchy style. There's even a quick story by Harvey Pekar and Tara Seibel, wherein they talk about why he stays in Cleveland.

As always, MINESHAFT is a treasure trove of sketchbook work. Crumb contributes his usual assortment of odds and ends, while Sophie's sketchbook feels much more at home here than in MOME. Pat Moriarty's totem pole drawings and accompanying article as to why he started making them were intriguing, and it was fun to see a drawing from the new Bill Griffith collection. The highlight of the issue, however, was seeing Kim Deitch's sketchbook progress on his fascinating new comic about Kathryn Whaley. Here, Deitch focuses in on the concept of the phonograph being invented much earlier than Edison, and his delight when he learned that there in fact were voice recordings prior to Edison. Deitch's sketchbook work is actually much more accessible to my eye than his slicker, heavier finished work.

Two other items of special interest here: Bruce Simon excavating the pages of Sexology magazine--published in the 1930s--and Jay Lynch's mind-boggling cover. The former is the sort of cultural mining that MINESHAFT does so well, as the questions (and some answers) reprinted here are hilarious yet indicative of a desperate search for open answers to a topic that few dared discuss publicly. The level of detail and density of gags on Lynch's cover is a strong indicator why he draws so little of his own work these days. Rand doesn't grouse about the way things are, he simply goes about finding what he does like and getting it out there, issue after issue. Any fan of comics with the slightest interest in the underground and post-underground era will wonder where this zine has been all their lives once they finally lay their hands on a copy. The imprint of Rand and partner Gioia Palmieri can be felt surely as the COMICS COMICS trio on their publication. It's felt in what they choose to publish and the artists who likewise reach out to them.