Indeed. A perfect adequation between the script and the
artwork is essential for comics/graphic novels to work and
appeal to fans and non fans of the medium. I personally like
to peruse or leaf through graphic novels, reading them kinda
sideways, shuttling lazily back and forth, resting on
particularly stong panels. Being an artist myself, I like to
pick the mind of the graphic artist at work, asking myself
about his intentions in the cutiing, the framing, the
lighting, etc. Just like you writers on this list who are so
able at deconstructing the writing process of authors. In the
70's and 80's, self-indulgent artwork became the norm, with a
large proportion being total crap; and I remember buying some
only because of the art, not bothering to read them. The new
generation of graphic novels authors is sometimes of the
highest caliber. One of my favorites chooses to have wordless
books, with oustanding artwork, which should satisfy listers
who seem to be intimidated and unable to read a graphic
novel. I am talking about Thomas Ott, a Swiss veteran, whose
work is now published in this country by Fantagraphics Books.
I recommend "Cinema Panopticum", and not only because it is
both noir and drawn in black & white. jean-pierre jacquet
On May 4, 2008, at 1:08 PM, Rick Ollerman wrote:
> I had one other quick thought: it's really about the
style. You
> wouldn't take a noir film script and shoot it in the
bright sunshine
> with a cast that looks like they stepped off an Up
With People set.
> It wouldn't come out noir. Likewise you can't do a
noir graphic novel
> in a Pokemon style and expect it to read true to the
story. The style
> of the art needs to match the tone of the script or
you get something
> that, I think, most people would find difficult to
read.
>
> Seriously, now I'm really done.
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 04 May 2008 EDT