Read the following
excerpt from Douglas Wolk's
Reading Comics
about the question of whether comics (it sounds strange to make it
singular, I know) is a medium or a genre. What is the difference between
a medium and a genre? Why does Wolk suggest it matters which one we
label comics? What does he mean by "highbrow" comics? Can we put a
work like Spiegelman's
Maus, with which we will begin the semester, and
Archie (seen above) alongside one another?
The difference between medium and a genre is that a genre takes all types ( for example taking subjects like Horror, Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Action, Mystery) and saying its all the same. Where Horror is a basic genre of a type of film or book or comic, it can't be crammed together with something like Romance. A medium is something that is a form of expression, and, like Wolk said, have very few to no rules on what you do with them.
ReplyDeleteSuggesting that comings are a genre is basically comparing The Avengers to Johnny The Homicidal Maniac (by Jhonen Vasquez). You can't fit that sort of adventure and heroism next to an anti-hero with schizophrenia. The stories don't gel. You write a specific genre of comics just like you can a book, but its kind of weird to refer to something as diverse as comics are as all one thing. Like trying to put a puzzle together when each piece is from a different set.
Highbrow comics, I think, was talked about as being snooty? Like when people say "the graphic narrative," to describe something like Maus, because it is deep and you can see i direct progression of plot.
Maus and Archie are both different written genres, but are not able to be compared to each other other than they are comics. Maus is a (very well written) series about the holocaust through the account of the author's father. Archie is a rich boy who gets into shenanigans (at least, that's what I know of him!)
It's interesting enough, people usually confuse the two as one in the same, me being one of these said people. It's nice to know there is a definite difference between the two. I like your example of the comparison between the Avengers and The Homicidal Maniac, you make a very valid point;-)
DeleteGenre is a theme, a label for the spirit of the work. A genre isn't beholden to one type of storytelling, and thus can expand outside of its medium. The medium is the method by which the story is conveyed.
ReplyDeleteWolk seems to feel that labeling comics as a genre in some way insults it, or belittles it, to such an extent that it makes people avoid being associated with it. I agree that describing comics as a genre is poor labeling, but less because of connotation and more that it is improper. Comics span genres, in the same ways that novels, movies, video games, and every other method of storytelling do.
"Highbrow" comics are just comics or graphic novels which have been deemed acceptable as literary achievements by the "critics". I would argue that Archie is more important to the comic canon, as it has done more to expand the notoriety of the medium. Maus shows that comics can take on heavy topics, which also does much to lend credence to the idea that the medium deserves its designation as an art form.
Medium is a format, or way of telling the story, where genre is the topic of the story being told, i.e. romance, or fantasy. This basically means that any story could be told in any format, but the format isn't the story itself.
ReplyDeleteWolk suggests that saying that comics are a genre, rather than a format, is erroneous because they are so many stories that can be told, such as romance, fantasy, crime, etc. I never paid attention to it, but I can honestly agree that its not a fair label. You go to Half-Price and all the Comic books/ Graphic Novels are in one tiny section, with the books organized by title, where the rest of the store is organized by genre, then author, then title. Its like sorting jeans/denim with colors, rather than separate your jeans into their own load (sorry for the laundry analogy, but I happen to be doing the laundry while I'm doing homework, lol).
Wolk is using "highbrow" like how people used to separate literature from novels. Back in the days of Jane Austen, the gothic novel was considered a "lowbrow" or deemed a fad by those who were more educated, and many thought very little of those who read those novels. It's a similar situation with comics. The subject matter seems to be considered very important, rather than how the story is being conveyed. However, if we look at the cultural impact of all comics, do we really have a "highbrow" or a "lowbrow" comic? Don't we all learn to read by reading the sunday comics? "Highbrow" has just been recognized for the story it tells and the impact it has on culture, rather than popularity.
I would argue that because Archie has been such a staple in American culture it could be on a level with Maus. But you have to look at the impact it has had on culture, before Maus it was taboo to tell a story about the Holocaust in a visual format; where Archie was extremely popular and got many artists interested in comics. Maus showed that there are a variety of topics, meaning that its more of a format or medium rather than a genre.
I believe that a medium is the form in which art is chosen to portray it's given ideas or emotions - print, paint, film, etc. A genre is simply a title that lets a person know whom the intended audience is for. Comics can be both or neither depending on the author or reader. Much in the way that literature writers prefer not to be categorized as a part of popular fiction also graphic novelist could wish to distance themselves from Stan Lee (don't get me wrong I LOVE Stan), but I could see how Wolk would define Maus as a 'high brow' piece of literary art, and X-men or Archie as fodder for the masses. Can they be talked about in the same paragraph and even they same sentence? Of course they can as a medium, but probably not so much as the same genre. I would have given Archie to my ten year old, and Maus to my sixteen year old who HATES reading. I believe that he might understand World War II and the Holocaust better by reading Maus than ignoring his History teacher.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the difference between a medium and a genre?
ReplyDeleteA medium is a material used by an artist or designer to create a work. A genre is a category of artistic composition, as in music or literature, characterized by similarities in form, style, or subject matter.
Why does Wolk suggest it matters which one we label comics?
Wolk says that comic books are a medium, rather than a genre. His reasoning for this is that it does not make sense to lump all comics together into one genre category, when they could be more accurately placed in different genres based on their content. He states that comics “are their own thing: a medium with its own devices, its own innovators, its own clichés, its own genres and traps and liberties. The first step toward attentively reading and fully appreciating comics is acknowledging that.”
What does he mean by "highbrow" comics?
The term “highbrow” comics denotes a snobbish attitude toward the comic book medium. Wolk expresses frustration that some people tend to look down at the comic books in general, only praising certain works (such as Persepolis) which they perceive as having a deeper meaning, and dismissing the comic medium at the same time by claiming that these praiseworthy works are not really comics at all.
Can we put a work like Spiegelman's Maus, with which we will begin the semester, and Archie (seen above) alongside one another?
I believe that whether or not Maus and Archie can be placed alongside one another depends on how specifically they are being classified. To say that both are comic books would not be inaccurate. However, they do not appear to have much of anything else in common so I think it would be a mistake to say they both fall into the same genre.
Medium is the set of media included in the creation of a form of art. Genre is the formula for a specific style of expression through story telling. Comics are a story telling medium and rely on genre as a means of description and understanding.
ReplyDeleteWolk seems to suggest that labeling comics as a genre instead of a medium causes people to think of the most commonly read comics.
Labeling comics as a genre means that uncommon story telling and comics that don't adhere to well known genres become a separate genre to themselves. This would be the 'highbrow' genre. These are often separated into the category of 'graphic novel or graphic novella'. This label suggests either an independent story, longer anthology, larger publication, or some kind of more compelling human struggle. These 'highbrow' and 'graphic novel' categorizations are both confusing and inaccurate as they overlap and blur the definition of the genre and medium of comics.
The reason for this confusion may have to do with the intended audience and anticipated demand for each comic. The number of people involved and separation of tasks into crafts set popular characters and stories from major publishers apart from independently made stories or stories where the writer and/or illustrator is creating an entirely new story and set of characters. This means that the process for creation, which is the method by which a medium is technically produced, is not the same for independent and popular comics.
The solution to the effective labeling of the quality of a comic book's creation process might be as simple as specifying it as independent, or popular. There are still instances of independent comics which use popular genre themes and motifs. Also, there are a few independent comics which gathered popular success and widespread publication that rivals those of the more popular and regularly published genres.
When attempting to describe two comics as different in their originality and thoughtfulness as Maus and Archie, it is important to compare the individual crafts involved and the relative production processes and their effectiveness in the particular style of expression within the medium.
If I were to attempt to compare the two samples of Maus and Archie I would begin by noting the melodramatic hatched shadows that enhance the somberness of Maus, which it is also important to note is black and white. The Archie image uses a number of symbolic decorations in the form of drops of water, lines of exclamation, and floating hearts. This is the comparative language of the genre of Archie that replaces the words and their greater importance of words in the process of telling the story in Maus.
I think the misuse of the terms genre and medium in regards to comics is just because of, like Wolk writes, a general ignorance (which as we can vaguely see in the article can be destructive) that could simply come from a desire to somehow link commonalities and conventions immediately apparent to the unknowing reader/spectator. For example, if I my experience with comics is limited to political cartoons, superhero comics and cheesy joke comics I might easily call comics a genre, assuming that they are a genre (commonality of content, or belonging to a similar subject matter, and style). Part of the issue here though is that genre can carry implications of quality. Of course we would feel hesitant calling something more thematically heavy a “comic” if we think comics are kind of a cheap diversionary genre (as opposed to a medium form like prose or film or scripts)—it’d be a sort of insult. This is one reason why Wolk points out the distinction.
ReplyDeleteComics are new, though, and we don’t have a common understanding or common terminology to talk about them neutrally or as a medium in themselves. Instead we borrow from other genres which run the risk of stripping the genre into a kind of knock-off that achieves success to the degree that it mimics “high-art” features of other mediums. But comics are a medium which have their own conventions and ways of communicating that are unique to it and what makes a successful comic may work only within the confines of the medium. We know from observation and Wolk’s analysis that features don’t always translate well medium to medium and the same goes for comics.
The difference between Maus and Archie are simply differences in genre within the medium. It’d be like putting a piece of young adult fiction next to say, a book in the “literature” section of Barnes and Noble. Are they both prose fiction? Well, yes. We could make arguments about the relative quality, style and subject matter, most definitely—but this is because they belong to vastly different genres and are trying to do different things with their words. Maus and Archie are both utilizing the same visual medium of panels, dialogue and cartoons to make two different ideas/narratives. It’s about the tools, basically, not the product.
A medium is a form that can be broken into multiple genres. Comics is a medium and it can be broken down to be historical, sci-fi, superhero, fantasy, anything that a novel or movie (mediums) can be. I think comics have gotten a bad reputation because they are associated with superheroes so closely to most people in America where they might think that comic books and superheroes are synonymous. Alternatively, superheroes are just a genre of movies, and to some people who don't care to read the comics, a more sophisticated version of the genre.
ReplyDeleteWe can put Maus next to Archie in the same way that we can put Crime and Punishment next to Twilight. It may take time for people to see that, as novels are old and comics are new. Movies seem exempt from this struggle, possibly because they reach a wider audience. As comics evolve and more come out and reach the mainstream, it is possible for the reputation of comic books to get better.
I believe that Comics should be broken down into sub-genres, and that comics as a whole are a medium. Comics are overlooked because of the world's stigma associating comics as cartoons. Really these comics give a deeper insight into the truth than a bias newspaper. These comics can cover so many genres and emotions with the simplicity that is needed in comprehension. These artists need to be give more respect because of their talents of telling a story to catch the eye.
ReplyDeleteMaus and Archie cannot be put in the same category, because they have such a huge difference in what each one is trying to portray. These comics have the potential to reach a huge audience if the platform allows it to grow. I think we have reached another creative golden era, with the people using their talents to impact the world.
The difference between medium and genre is that medium is the way an idea, expression, or emotion is portrayed. A genre is a category within a medium. This distinction is important for comics as it gives legitimacy to the art form and it allows for the broadness of styles to be adequately represented. There are various forms of comics in the world. From the comic strips in the paper, to the large graphic novels many people enjoy. Political cartoons and strips are completely different to the super hero stories told in comic books and should be represented as such.
ReplyDeleteWolk describes the inane classification of highbrow comics as comics that tell deeper more serious stories that need to be separated from the childish or immature nature of normal comics. He rightfully points out the absurdity of the notion that if a comic is deep it is not a comic. This is the reason why we need to see comics as a medium, so that we can acknowledge that Maus and Archie are similar in style, but in genre they are completely different. Putting Maus and Archie in the same category would be like saying that the music of Bach is the same as the music of Skrillex. It should not be done even though they are both portrayed using the same medium.
A medium and genre lie in two different categories yet branch out from each other. A medium is the form in which a story takes such as sculpture or video while a genre is a specific type of story such as a Western or Science Fiction. Types of genre can be presented in a form of medium. Comics are a medium not a genre. Comics present many types of stories that flow into genre. We can't classify all comics as the same thing. There are so many different kinds of stories being presented by this medium. Decades ago, comics were mainly tied to a "handful of genres" throwing the whole comic world into a single place in our minds. They are lumping all comics into a specific genre and making comics a single form. Comics are explosive in ideas and just as open to ideas and genre as novels and films, yet they are shunned and thrown into the dirt by critics as simply lighthearted tales of superheroes of our childhood.
ReplyDeleteHighbrow comics are represented by their types of story and depth of meaning. A comic that gives ideas that aren't normally linked to the comic form but to novels and film. Highbrow comics pull away from the less serious pieces like superhero comics and pull them into a specific group. I'm not saying that comics can't be serious. Batman comics, specifically deal with murder, psychological forms and issues that pull away from the lightness of the poppy and whimsical side of some superheroes. Highbrow comics deal with issues and history in serious yet playful ways that lighten the mood yet open our minds to the possibility of understanding the history deeper and with more respect. Maus which is a look into the Holocaust and Archie which is a somewhat light look into the life of a teenage boy and his friends are both comics yet share lines of separation. One is of a more serious nature yet is presented in a somewhat light form, while the other plays on the less serious side of life. But still, their form of presentation is equal and even though they lack the similar genre, they still lie together in showing life in different ways and present a message that we and intended to understand.
When speaking of medium, I think of the vehicle used to portray the story or narrative, such as film, paint, words, sculpture, and so on. Genre describes the important or prominent theme of the artifact, such as memoir, horror, young adult, and such.
ReplyDeleteI think it is important to understand the difference between the two concepts as it applies to the comic or graphic novel. When I first read Maus, it was not just a concentration on the prose, but also a concentration on the illustrations as well. Spiegelman could have told his father's story without the illustrations, but they served a purpose. SPOILER: Choosing the animals to represent the Jewish community, the SS Police, and the American soldiers was used to draw upon pathos. One could look at these illustrations without words and be able to follow the story.
I believe that labeling something into a genre takes way the importance of the piece itself. Comics are meant to stand alone, and not to be put into a category. It discredits the artist.
Highbrow comics, as I could have imagined, are used to describe a "higher level" form of comic, something more "sophisticated" than the superhero topic. But does that discredit the merit, talent, and value of the artist?
I don't think there is a difference between "high" and "low" art. I think that all art, somewhere, has some value. Even random notebook doodles have value to me. Different pieces will resonate with different people, and someone might feel more powerfully when they read something like Captain America than they do when they read something like Maus. It's subjective. And trying to categorize work as "high" or "low" only serves to invalidate work rather than reveal any particular truth.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that it is not worth analyzing or at the very least being mindful of a work’s intention, when it comes to categorizing it as “high” or “low” art? Biases against comics and other new media aside, I think a big part of what determines a piece’s status as “high” or “low” art is what kind of intentions exist behind it, i.e. the difference between a first-hand account of life in Darfur and the latest Transformers movie. I’m not saying that popular or approachable works are inherently worse than more challenging or “high minded” art. In fact, I think “high” and “low” as modifiers shouldn’t have any inherent stigma, with the two having equal (if disparate) goals. Two sides of the same coin.
DeleteGreat conversation about "high" vs. "low" culture, as well as medium and genre. These terms are central to debates in comics studies, where comics (and comics artists) have long expressed anxiety about their place in aesthetic culture.
ReplyDeleteA medium is where art is placed. Anything sensible is a medium be that taste, touch, sight, smell, ect. A genre is the style of that art, some is beautiful and relate able to me others not nearly as much. Many times a genre can be placed into a category with other pieces of work sharing different mediums that all have common underlying goals and mental quirks. I believe he wants to make the difference clear due to the relation between comic and comedic. He wants to put a clear separation between the two due to the way a comic is perceived as a way to laugh as you would at comedy. High-brow comics are a bit of a misnomer to me, all comics have an intended purpose to draw out a relate able experience from the reader, or share a story of a world they have not experienced. We can absolutely place any part of graphic novel style artwork near any others regardless of the genre. They share a medium and the contrast between Archie and Maus is art itself.
ReplyDeleteWolk provides us with a strong understanding of the difference between a medium and a genre. The two concepts can, more or less, be boiled down into two questions: “how” and “what,” respectively. The medium of an art is how it presents itself, whether this is through words, moving pictures, or a combination of words and pictures. The genre of an art relates more to its content, what it’s presenting. Although it can be difficult to establish a particular genre’s underpinnings, it is still typified by what substance it provides, like horror or slice-of-life, or any number of categories.
ReplyDeleteI think that Wolk’s article provides clear insights into some of the more pernicious modes of thought going on in the world of art criticism, despite himself (more on that later.) For anyone with a serious about comics, the disrespect the medium receives is all too obvious, with Wolk’s quotation by Gloria Emerson being particularly cringe-worthy. I think the problem stems from the belief that art is meant to signify value in a work, and that any medium that doesn’t have a history of greatness or loftiness is inherently “unartistic.” Quality should never be a factor in determining whether something is art or not, or as it happens all too readily, whether or not it belongs to a specific medium. If something’s of high quality, that doesn’t prevent it from being a comic. And of course, comics are not the only medium which has to deal with this prejudice. More recently, video games have been dealing with the very same issues as comics, where representatives of older media (*cough cough* Ebert) are quick to dismiss a young medium, based solely on their own unfamiliarity with it. Saying something is art shouldn’t elevate it, but that does not make saying a new medium isn’t art any less wrong.
While I enjoyed the article and felt that it raised some good points, I must comment on the small amount of hypocrisy that creeps into it. Wolk mentions the snobbiness of established critics of art, while in the same article he is quick to dismiss comics meant for movie adaptation as “dreadful, of course.” It’s most likely an accurate assessment of some works, and I wouldn’t say the statement ruined his entire article, but I can’t help but feel like it seemed to run counter to his main theme of “openness in how we categorize media and art.”
Oh Douglas Wolk... I'd hoped I'd never cross you again. I wrote an entire paper on what a stereotyping dimwit he is. Before answering the questions I wanted to point out my intense distaste for this guy. just letting you know my bias toward him.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the difference between a medium and a genre?
Any dictionary would tell you that these are very very different things. A medium (at least in my own definition as it relates to art) is the broad picture of what your work classifies best under. Painting is a medium. Television is a medium. But a genre is a subcategory of the medium. This painting is a landscape. This TV show is a horror.
Why does Wolk suggest it matters which one we label comics?
because he's a total nitwit and thinks he just made some revelation once again. (Sorry I'm doing my best to unbias) But anyway it does matter that people see comics as a medium and not a genre since for one, comics is not a subcategory of anything. It's its own monster combining images with text (sometimes) that can do things that no other MEDIUM can. And once something can be crafted in a way that no other medium can reproduce without getting technical, then it necessitates its own category.
What does he mean by "highbrow" comics?
He likes to think that some comics want to pretend that all the mainstream superhero folly/ cheap independent work/ cash grab marketing ploys are in a whole other ball field than the well thought out and finely crafted work that is less notably recognized.
Though this is true to a degree, they are all still comics nonetheless. My big issue with Wolk stems from his inability to recognize the crossover between the two, as well as even recognizing more experimental works into his own definition of comics. Back to the point, he's attempting to make comics he likes shine brighter, as well as make a tasteful discredit to all other comic work. Sorry I just can't say this one in an unbiased way! Doing my best here.
Can we put a work like Spiegelman's Maus, with which we will begin the semester, and Archie (seen above) alongside one another?
Of course! My only point is that alphabetically they're backwards, but they totally do share the same shelf in my room. Does the News pretend that the cooking channel is a totally different thing, separate from the "real" television? Do abstract paintings not share the same hall in a museum as a portrait? Of course not! It's all under a wide umbrella of what comics is! It's a fantastic and broad medium manipulating space and time for the reader in a crazy and interesting way. Archie and Maus both utilize different tools of the trade to effective ends, but the means of those ends will always keep them in the same boat, and on the same shelf, or in the same conversation.
According to this excerpt and my understanding of it, comics are a medium, not a genre. A genre is a specific category of literature and a medium is delivery or forms of expression. Its important to label comics correctly because they are their own genre. Highbrow comics as stated in Wolk's reading, are a mistake to assert they are not really comics. In other word, highbrow is another way to say stuck up or snobby. I don't think you can put Maus and Archie side-by-side because the only similarities are that they are pictures and drawings with their message.
ReplyDelete