Today I picked up a copy of Daniel Raeburn’s latest book/zine… a substantial analysis of Chris Ware, his work, and the theory behind it.
“Comics aren’t really a literature,” Ware says, “not yet, anyway, mainly because the tools for expressing yourself are still so limited. For example, if somebody wanted to make a film about their life, they probably could. It might not be any good, but becasue everyone grew up watching movies, everyone is steeped in the language of film, and they could muddle through the process of conveying their intentions. Or, if somebody decides to sit down and write their memoir, they can do it. Just look at the size of an English dictionary: We have a huge vocabulary of words and the grammer to express our feelings with subtlety. But whenever you try to write about life using the basic recieved structure of comics the result ends up generally feeling like a sitcom. The only way to change this is to keep on making comics, again and again, so that the language accrues the means for conveying details and nuances.”
Now – do me a favor. Read that paragraph over and insert “video games” for comics. Then do the same conceptual replacement with with the following discussion:
“Fundamentally you’re better off using ideograms rather than realistic drawings,” Ware says. “There’s a vulgarity to showing something as you really see it and experience it. It sets up an odd fourth wall that blocks the reader’s empathy.” Imagine if for the cover of the fourth issue of Acme Novelty Library Ware had substituted in place of his symbolically weeping cat head a finely detailed close-up of a yowling tabby with wet fur and quivering whiskers, and you see immediately this wall. Realism is fine for telling tales about jut-jawed good guys in tights who sock dastards, but it is too explicit for anything emotional. It bullies the readers and their emotions, turning sentiment into sentimentality. Just as the old saw holds that in writing fiction you should show, not tell, in comics to show too much is to “tell” too much. Ware kept his pictolinguistic strips simple because his goal was not to depict emotion, but to create it.
Finally – consider games as you absorb this commentary on the artistic ghettoization of comics:
“…But if Ware is the future of comics, he became this future by recognizing a paradox best summarized in the cartoonist Art Spiegelman’s aphorism, “The future of comics is in the past.”
Take any Sunday funnies page from the 1920’s, compare it with any one of today’s, and you will see overall a near catastrophic decay of craft, quality and style. The reasons for this decline are many, but again much of the blame must fall on cartoonists themselves. One of cartooonists’ earliest blunders was trying to compete with the cinematic language on the cinema’s terms. As the popularity of movies began to eclipse that of comics, more and more cartoonists began to ape a cinematic look and cinematic techniques. In doing so they neglected many of the unique strengths and possiblites peculiar to their own youthful medium, including typography, iconography and page composition. The result was comic strips, then comic books, that behaved less like comics and more like storyboards to a swashbuckling, superheroic action film. These action comics so dominated the postwar news-stands that to this day they continue to fuel the near-ubiquitous misconception that comics are not a medium but a genre. It is not necessarily the adolescent content of these comics that irks Ware but their adolescent form. “The basic idea of comics is just slapping word balloons on top of drawings,” Ware says. “That is so boneheaded.”
—
Now consider Neal Stephenson’s Slashdot interview – particularly, the discussion about audience and accountability in science fiction (and by proxy, games). Taking both arguments into account, can we postulate that the nature of artistic mediums is to bifurcate?
The movement towards guaranteed entertainment experiences and away from open-ended systems of interaction is a seemingly popular and profitable one. But it doesn’t do much for the artistic or expressive growth of the medium. If anything (as Ware contends) these things distance our audience from games’ emotional content, and turn serious attempts at drama (as with the storyline of Max Payne) into hoaky soaps. Must games that are increasingly “realistic” and “cinematic” depict decreasingly complex narrative or emotional content?
And as games move from elite to popular culture passtimes, will a certain class of developers move back into the bedroom or garage, with folks like Ware? Certainly, as the gap between art and entertainment grows – we see that there are other differences. Concerns about the nature of play, creativity, design… questions about what kinds of life a developer should lead. Entertainers work hard (sometimes to sickness), but they smile all the while – making it look easy and fun, putting the public at ease. Artists forego showers and socializing in favor of churn – grinding out communications (canvases, sheet music, choreography), narrowing their field of vision to a singular expression.
Neither seems quite right – and one hopes for balance… artists that are entertaining enough (and professional enough) to earn a decent living while “making a statement”. But when even the educators encourage performance over perspective, it’s hard to be enthusiastic about that prospect.
I hate to “golden days” it, or pick sides… but I wonder. Is the future of games somewhere in the past as well?