Blog 9: Designing Graphic eTextbooks,
Part 2: Developing the Visuals
As
with Blog #8 that dealt with creating the text for graphic eTextbooks, I am not
going to write a blog about how to draw them. What this blog will look at is
how artists can adapt the sequential art medium to the digital platform.
Remember, what is relevant today will, undoubtedly, change in another three
years (if not sooner) as technology changes, so adaptability is key.
Aspect Ratios

Page Design

I
mentioned in Blog #7 that “I believe the medium will need to focus less on
traditional page design and more on screen/panel design.” Before the mid-1960s,
original comic book art pages measured 14” x 21.” In an effort to save money on
paper, the page size for original art was reduced to 11” x 16” (or 11” x 17”). An
interesting consequence of reducing the paper size meant that now the entire
page fit comfortably within the artist’s peripheral vision. Though
long-established, dynamic artists like Jack Kirby had a harder time adapting
their style to the smaller (constrained) size, other artists, such as Neal
Adams and Jim Steranko, began experimenting with innovative page layouts. However,
smaller and smaller screen sizes have a direct impact on visual storytelling,
and the way sequential artists have designed pages since the 1960s has to
change. Certainly, tablets are better vehicles for storytelling than their
smaller counterparts. While I would never recommend designing graphic
eTextbooks for phones, I would like to see them used in conjunction with tablets for storing and sharing digital
notepads. That way if you are on a bus or walking to class you can simply study
the notes for your test on your phone. The most important aspect of all graphic
eTextbooks that artists need to realize is that above all else the storytelling
must be clear, so there is no question about the information being taught.
Native vs. Non-native Sequential Art Readers

Apps,
such as the one provided by Comixology,
include a Guided View option that navigates
the reader through the eComic panel-by-panel. I have heard Native readers express
that they have a problem with this for aesthetic reasons. The argument is that
creators design a page to be experienced as a single visual, so chopping it up
into digestible bits has the same appeal as watching a film adapted to a full
screen television via pan-and-scan editing. How much of this resistance is
aesthetic, and how much is due to the tech I do not know, but for these people
I will simply suggest that they only view the eComic page-by-page. Guided View,
in my opinion, is a great boon to Non-native readers because it is a shortcut
to learning the language of Sequential Art. Eventually, Non-native readers
become “fluent” in reading Sequential Art, so anything that helps in making the
transition effortless and more enjoyable is a plus.
The Need for Coloring Graphic eTextbooks
Since
the cost of printing is no longer a problem this is a no-brainer—color them! Yes, there is an initial up
front cost for coloring, but 1) they will be more appealing, and 2) you will be
competing against other, well-designed, colorful eTextbooks.
A Word About Digital Art

Before
closing, I want to address the philosophical prejudices towards Digital Art. You
cannot debate these prejudices from a position of passion (as many of us do), but, while I love the piece of Digital Art shown above by Jon Foster, there are those who would dismiss all Digital Art simply because it is digital.
Logic must be debated with logic, and by using philosophy’s rhetoric to state the
case. The following are my thoughts on why the essence of Digital Art is no
different than any other form of Art. While this essay will certainly not end
the discussion, my hope is that someone more scholarly than I, more steeped in
philosophy than I, and more eloquent than I, will continue the debate. Hypokeimenon of Silicon is my term for where
Digital Art exists. I will admit that I like its alliteration. At least check
out the definition below! ;-)
Unconcealing the Essence of Digital Art
Through an “Opening of Our Vision”
Hypokeimenon: The core of things around which everything
else assembles. Think of it as Greek for Captain America (core) and The
Avengers (Assemble).

Heidegger
challenges the traditional belief that truth belongs solely to logic,
encouraging us to set aside pseudo-concepts by breaking down the boundaries of
our perceptions through an opening of our vision (Heidegger, 2002). To that
end, we must determine what the
current pseudo-concepts are surrounding Digital Art, what truth is it conveying to us, and what
are the barriers of our perceptions
that keep us from seeing that truth?
There
are several philosophical arguments
against Digital Art. First, Digital Art is ephemeral, not physical; it is
considered archival rather than artistic (Marchese & Marchese, 1995). If
Art is part of being then must it always be physical? Digital Art is brought to
our perception by way of a complex tool in a process that is analogous to the
way sheet music is brought to our perception. Music is ephemeral yet it is
still Art. Both Digital Art and music are ontological; however, their true
essence comes from the sharing of it, and in each participant’s dynamic act of
unconcealing. Should Digital Art’s ephemerality necessitate its exclusion as
Art, or does society need to adjust its understanding of what Art may be, or,
more importantly, what we need to allow Art to evolve into?
Further, Sean Cubitt argues that the processual
nature of Digital Art makes it incomplete, imperfect, thus prohibiting
achievement of pure presence (Cubitt, 2000). Even after they are “finished”
artists rarely consider a work complete, since Art is an ongoing process of
unconcealing. It is the way many artists are wired. It is then erroneous to
assume that pure presence necessitates completion or perfection. Can we in our
imperfection create anything that is perfect? Can anything that is perfect be
physical? If either case were true, Art would have ceased to be created long
ago, since any “post-perfection” Art would have nothing new to reveal.

Kant
believed that the ‘task’ or process is
the aesthetic core of Art. If Art speaks for itself then shouldn’t
aesthetic-based judgments be based solely on Art, which can be shared, and not
a ‘task’ that, once executed, cannot? If we consider Heidegger, the artist
cannot be defined as a tool because “A man is not a thing” (Heidegger, 1960).
Thus the work of Art becomes
the conduit while the artist remains as an intelligent individual whose
relationship to the transcendental sphere is that of symbiotic ecstasy. What is
unconcealed to us in Art comes from what the artist wishes to reveal after the
act of creation is completed.
Computers
do not uproot us from our native habitat—a major philosophical argument against
the use of technology. In fact, the whole concept of home computers is
antithetical to removing people from their habitat, and even though laptops
have changed our mobility we still congregate around WiFi Hotspots. Cyberspace
has become a communal gathering place where artists can share their work
globally. Artists need no longer live, work, and die in obscurity when those
who seek the truth in their Art are only a few keystrokes and an uplink away. The
Internet allows for Art to be unconcealed anywhere—thus unframing the
world in a process of anti-gestell.


We are engaged in a dialectic,
which, because of staunch traditionalism, refuses to accept innovation as an
evident synthesis. Digital Art is ephemeral, it lacks pure presence and it is
mimetic. That is its nature; not its essence, and certainly not its truth. Its essence lies in
how it manifests itself to the viewer, and its truth lies in what the viewer
finds through a dynamic act of unconcealing. It is an essence and a truth that
are no longer bound by a tradition of physicality.
Topics for Discussion
1)
What other problems are there with developing graphic eTextbooks?
2)
Do you think graphic eTextbooks should be formatted for phones, or is that
screen too small when it comes to learning graphic subject material?
Next Blog: The
Origins of Prejudice Towards Illustration
No comments:
Post a Comment