There's a lot of comics theory (it's in Eisner and McCloud and I think pretty prevalent in Abstract Comics) that emphasizes images in sequence as the defining element of comics. And there's some push-back on making sequence too central to comics as this rules out the extensive work in single panel works. Sequence is obviously pretty important for Abstract Comics -- without it, isn't the work just an abstract painting? But so, I've been wondering if poemics put quite the same definitional emphasis on sequence.
Arguably, sequence is what distinguishes a poemic from a visual poem or concrete poetry, although I am not sure Alvaro de Sá posited sequence as essential to poemics, his "poetic metalanguage." Some of his poemics seem to be about panel progression; others do not.
And then, under all of this is the degree to which the work uses/relies upon its method of transmission. Lot's of your (pszren) shared work over at the experimental comics blog seems to be emphasizing experiments in the materiality (objectness) of comics. Others (Satu and Rosaire, for example) post comics that seem designed for web dispersal, sometimes even going so far as to animate images.
With "lo.." I found myself asking questions about its "fit" as a poemic -- primarily because it is one panel and "one" image. And then, a little later and with a post (mine!) between, comes "..ve PI." Clearly, the two works are related (title and aesthetic choices point to this relationship). But that sequence has been broken, or at least interrupted. Taken together, "lo....ve PI" is a poemic that seems to work the medium of the blog. The heart/valentine is "broken" across blog posts.
I think we are still scratching the surface of ways poemics (and other experimental comics) might interact with the primary medium we are currently using to share them -- namely, a blog on the internet. But "lo....ve PI" inspires me to continue thinking about and experimenting with the possibilities.
I totally agree. we are still at the beginning, and we need both theory and practice. sometimes it's the "poemic instinct" which makes us know what poemics are, but theory, definitions and explanations (even tutorials) are also important, I think.
and the second part :).
So, this one and "lo.." really got me thinking.
ReplyDeleteThere's a lot of comics theory (it's in Eisner and McCloud and I think pretty prevalent in Abstract Comics) that emphasizes images in sequence as the defining element of comics. And there's some push-back on making sequence too central to comics as this rules out the extensive work in single panel works. Sequence is obviously pretty important for Abstract Comics -- without it, isn't the work just an abstract painting? But so, I've been wondering if poemics put quite the same definitional emphasis on sequence.
Arguably, sequence is what distinguishes a poemic from a visual poem or concrete poetry, although I am not sure Alvaro de Sá posited sequence as essential to poemics, his "poetic metalanguage." Some of his poemics seem to be about panel progression; others do not.
And then, under all of this is the degree to which the work uses/relies upon its method of transmission. Lot's of your (pszren) shared work over at the experimental comics blog seems to be emphasizing experiments in the materiality (objectness) of comics. Others (Satu and Rosaire, for example) post comics that seem designed for web dispersal, sometimes even going so far as to animate images.
With "lo.." I found myself asking questions about its "fit" as a poemic -- primarily because it is one panel and "one" image. And then, a little later and with a post (mine!) between, comes "..ve PI." Clearly, the two works are related (title and aesthetic choices point to this relationship). But that sequence has been broken, or at least interrupted. Taken together, "lo....ve PI" is a poemic that seems to work the medium of the blog. The heart/valentine is "broken" across blog posts.
I think we are still scratching the surface of ways poemics (and other experimental comics) might interact with the primary medium we are currently using to share them -- namely, a blog on the internet. But "lo....ve PI" inspires me to continue thinking about and experimenting with the possibilities.
I totally agree. we are still at the beginning, and we need both theory and practice. sometimes it's the "poemic instinct" which makes us know what poemics are, but theory, definitions and explanations (even tutorials) are also important, I think.
ReplyDeleteI tried too make a poemicstrip for Valentine's Day....
ReplyDeletehttp://zoobahn.blogspot.com/2010/02/valentinstag.html