Hot Best Seller

The Aesthetics of Comics

Availability: Ready to download

From Gary Larson's The Far Side to George Herriman's Krazy Kat, comic strips have two obvious defining features. They are visual narratives, using both words and pictures to tell stories, and they use word balloons to represent the speech and thought of depicted characters. Art historians have studied visual artifacts from every culture; cultural historians have recently p From Gary Larson's The Far Side to George Herriman's Krazy Kat, comic strips have two obvious defining features. They are visual narratives, using both words and pictures to tell stories, and they use word balloons to represent the speech and thought of depicted characters. Art historians have studied visual artifacts from every culture; cultural historians have recently paid close attention to movies. Yet the comic strip, an art form known to everyone, has not yet been much studied by aestheticians or art historians. This is the first full-length philosophical account of the comic strip.Distinguished philosopher David Carrier looks at popular American and Japanese comic strips to identify and solve the aesthetic problems posed by comic strips and to explain the relationship of this artistic genre to other forms of visual art. He traces the use of speech and thought balloons to early Renaissance art and claims that the speech balloon defines comics as neither a purely visual nor a strictly verbal art form, but as something radically new. Comics, he claims, are essentially a composite art that, when successful, seamlessly combine verbal and visual elements.Carrier looks at the way an audience interprets comics and contrasts the interpretation of comics and other mass-culture images to that of Old Master visual art. The meaning behind the comic can be immediately grasped by the average reader, whereas a piece of museum art can only be fully interpreted by scholars familiar with the history and the background behind the painting. Finally, Carrier relates comics to art history. Ultimately, Carrier's analysis of comics shows why this popular art is worthy of philosophical study and proves that a better understanding of comics will help us better understand the history of art.


Compare

From Gary Larson's The Far Side to George Herriman's Krazy Kat, comic strips have two obvious defining features. They are visual narratives, using both words and pictures to tell stories, and they use word balloons to represent the speech and thought of depicted characters. Art historians have studied visual artifacts from every culture; cultural historians have recently p From Gary Larson's The Far Side to George Herriman's Krazy Kat, comic strips have two obvious defining features. They are visual narratives, using both words and pictures to tell stories, and they use word balloons to represent the speech and thought of depicted characters. Art historians have studied visual artifacts from every culture; cultural historians have recently paid close attention to movies. Yet the comic strip, an art form known to everyone, has not yet been much studied by aestheticians or art historians. This is the first full-length philosophical account of the comic strip.Distinguished philosopher David Carrier looks at popular American and Japanese comic strips to identify and solve the aesthetic problems posed by comic strips and to explain the relationship of this artistic genre to other forms of visual art. He traces the use of speech and thought balloons to early Renaissance art and claims that the speech balloon defines comics as neither a purely visual nor a strictly verbal art form, but as something radically new. Comics, he claims, are essentially a composite art that, when successful, seamlessly combine verbal and visual elements.Carrier looks at the way an audience interprets comics and contrasts the interpretation of comics and other mass-culture images to that of Old Master visual art. The meaning behind the comic can be immediately grasped by the average reader, whereas a piece of museum art can only be fully interpreted by scholars familiar with the history and the background behind the painting. Finally, Carrier relates comics to art history. Ultimately, Carrier's analysis of comics shows why this popular art is worthy of philosophical study and proves that a better understanding of comics will help us better understand the history of art.

30 review for The Aesthetics of Comics

  1. 5 out of 5

    Nicole Collins

    I emailed the author asking if he had a PDF of another book he wrote and he said: “Thanks for your note Alas I have no pdf I identify with you for I too don’t have library access David” I love this vibe. Very poetic. Great book

  2. 5 out of 5

    Whitney Borup

    This book spent a lot of time preaching an attitude that I hope anyone interested in reading a book called "the aesthetics of comics" would already understand, and that is that comics are a worthwhile art form to study. He also seemed to give no credit to the creators of comics (both books and strips), assuming that everything a philosopher could pick up about them was a purely commercial and/or accidental choice. This book spent a lot of time preaching an attitude that I hope anyone interested in reading a book called "the aesthetics of comics" would already understand, and that is that comics are a worthwhile art form to study. He also seemed to give no credit to the creators of comics (both books and strips), assuming that everything a philosopher could pick up about them was a purely commercial and/or accidental choice.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Sally

    One of the best explanations of how the medium communicates with readers - its strengths, weaknesses, and what generally makes comics work. Carrier brings an art historian's knowledge and seriousness to reexplain comics as a serious and worthwhile mode of communication. One of the best explanations of how the medium communicates with readers - its strengths, weaknesses, and what generally makes comics work. Carrier brings an art historian's knowledge and seriousness to reexplain comics as a serious and worthwhile mode of communication.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Jeremy Carnes

    While there were moments of clear and useful exploration of the medium, this book is one of the poorest explorations of comics I’ve read. It’s hard to really tell sometimes if he wanted to write a book about comics, specifically, or art history more broadly. There was a very shallow understanding of the inner workings of the medium itself and nearly no effort to account for the historical development of the medium as such. This poor research on the medium made his claims—like for the validity of While there were moments of clear and useful exploration of the medium, this book is one of the poorest explorations of comics I’ve read. It’s hard to really tell sometimes if he wanted to write a book about comics, specifically, or art history more broadly. There was a very shallow understanding of the inner workings of the medium itself and nearly no effort to account for the historical development of the medium as such. This poor research on the medium made his claims—like for the validity of studying comics and for seeing comics as a posthistorical art—either not compelling or totally incomprehensible.

  5. 5 out of 5

    John

    ugh... so aloof... Here's one more reason to hate art critics. He doesn't even hardly talk about "comics", instead deferring to fine art and statues A LOT. This was published in 2000, there was plenty to choose from back then, though admittedly not as much as today. Carrier knows a lot about art, but very little about comics. I wouldn't have even finished it except the work is mentioned a lot in "The Art of Comics: A Philosophical Approach". ugh... so aloof... Here's one more reason to hate art critics. He doesn't even hardly talk about "comics", instead deferring to fine art and statues A LOT. This was published in 2000, there was plenty to choose from back then, though admittedly not as much as today. Carrier knows a lot about art, but very little about comics. I wouldn't have even finished it except the work is mentioned a lot in "The Art of Comics: A Philosophical Approach".

  6. 4 out of 5

    Esbeyde In'morales

    Mi nueva biblia TuT

  7. 5 out of 5

    Karna Mustaqim

  8. 4 out of 5

    John

  9. 5 out of 5

    Gaby Machado

  10. 5 out of 5

    Nancy Elsamanoudi

  11. 5 out of 5

    Katie

  12. 5 out of 5

    Oliver

  13. 5 out of 5

    Damian Paradis

  14. 5 out of 5

    Layssa

  15. 4 out of 5

    S.

  16. 4 out of 5

    Steven Seelig

  17. 4 out of 5

    Becca Hillburn

  18. 4 out of 5

    Clare

  19. 4 out of 5

    Anne E Ronan

  20. 5 out of 5

    Chinchilla

  21. 5 out of 5

    Mark

  22. 5 out of 5

    Katie

  23. 5 out of 5

    Platypus Jones

  24. 4 out of 5

    Jim

  25. 4 out of 5

    Dennis G

  26. 5 out of 5

    Kimberly_the_Bibliophile

  27. 4 out of 5

    Dennis Jacob

  28. 4 out of 5

    George

  29. 4 out of 5

    Scott

  30. 4 out of 5

    Tiina

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...