CCT300+Lab3

Lab 3

I do not agree with McLuhan’s definition of comics as an extension of photographic media with the premise that comics have anything to do with photography in the first place. However, before I continue my argument, I’d like to point out that “photographic media” is a very ambiguous term. It’s a hybrid of two words combined in which the meaning becomes fluid and changeable throughout contexts.

Comics are drawn by hand. Its existence relies on manual labor rather than chemical reactions or digital encoding that involves capture of lights.

However, once it’s settled that comics are not photographic by nature at all, I agree that comics are an extension of photographic representation. While according to McLuhan, film and TV (two major forms of photographic media) are regarded as “hot” media because they bombard viewers with visual images and leave them little time to reflect on the information they took in, comics are “cool” and deductive since it calls upon readers to commit certain mental efforts during reading. When reading through panels, readers voluntarily participates in “closure” when reading through panels. They use their imagination to fill in the gaps. Comics incorporate texts, lettering and images to narrate the story, to represent sound, smell, motions, that readily activate readers’ senses in a way no other photographic media could achieve. In addition, one single image within comics can depict longer than a moment. Time and space exists in a different dimension in Comics than on a TV screen. Finally, comics constitute abstracted visual representation that bears less resemblance to the reality when compared to photography. (McCloud, 1993)

Reference: McCloud, Scott. (1993) // Understanding Comics: The invisible art. // United States of America. Harper Perennial.