For a long time I've been at odds with the very notion of motion comics. Are they necessary? Probably, probably not. The aim of the comic artist is to capture the essence of movement with a static image, conveying what has come and what is to come by emphasizing a single frame of character. Motion comics, to me, are simply this concept taken literally.
I prefer to interpret these things as the artist saw them in their basest form. I don't want the process lain before me like someone is holding my hand to do it. It's like the difference between Christianity and Atheism with Agnosticism in between - it seems to me that the motion comic doesn't know which one to be. Motion comics should be treated as a fascinating supplement to the medium, not a possible vestige for supplantation. Motion comics are dependent on a comic reader's ability to follow an arranged series of panels and composition, much less so than traditional comics. This guidance may or may not help veteran readers figure out new ways to enjoy comics, or new readers learn the way comics work. Like I said, it's a supplement, nothing more, not that it's a bad thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment