Author Archives: Joseph S

The Ownership of Adaptation

Posted on by
1

For a while, I’ve been bothered by the idea of adaptation. Not in the sense that I hate adaptations, but in the sense that I’m never sure what the rights of an adapter are in regards to the work being adapted. Should they stick as close to the source material as possible or can they change as much as they want, essentially giving the adapter license to do as he pleases? The more I thought about it, the more torn I became.

I should start by pointing out that adaptations are everywhere, and I don’t just mean of books into movies. Nowadays, adaptation goes in almost any way you can think of. Books are adapted into movies (and vice versa), movies are adapted into musicals (and vice versa), novels are adapted into comics (and vice versa), and on occasion, comics are even adapted into broadway musicals. We even saw this year how classical music is adapted to dance in ways the original composer had no intention of.

I think the first thing that must be done is to separate adaptations into two distinct types: 1) Character Adaptations and 2) Story Adaptations. A character adaptation would be a story based on a set character or group of character though the story is new (ex: The Muppets, the Sherlock Holmes films, most superhero movies, etc.), and a story adaptation would be a new way of presenting a pre-existing story in a new medium (ex: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo film, Legally Blonde: the Musical, etc.) Each has it’s own perspective that has to be addressed to answer my question.

When it comes to a character adaptation, an adapter has a lot of freedom, but at the same time is very limited. The point of the story is the characters and presenting them in a fresh way. That could mean taking characters who already existed in that medium and telling your own story through them, or it could mean taking an established character from a series which existed in a different medium and reshaping him for your new medium. Either way, what is tantamount is being true to the characters. In a sense, these stories are alot like fan fiction. Your plot can be great and your art can be fantastic, but if you’re not letting the characters be themselves, you have nothing. For example, when it came to the new Muppet movie, Frank Oz, one of the original muppeteers, said he wouldn’t take part in the film because he felt they were not being true to the characters. On the other hand, Christopher Nolans Batman movies have been praised by comic fans and movie fans alike. Not because he is telling the definitive Batman story, but because he is telling an excellent, unique Batman story, while staying true to the character and his origins.The story can be an excellent one, but it must be done within the confines of the already existing characters, which can prove to be a challenge.

The other type of adaptation is where it really gets tricky. When it comes to a story adaptation, there are so many things to consider. Theoretically you should be giving over the same story in a different medium, but it’s not that simple. Different mediums have different strengths and if you ignore that, you come up with a bad adaptation. I once read a novel version of a series of comic books that spent so much time describing what was happening that it was very hard to stay focused. In a comic, you don’t have that problem because it is all visual. When it comes to movies and musicals, there are also time constraints to consider, which would never be an issue in a book. You end up cutting things, and by default, things that are left in must change. If they don’t, the movie/musical won’t make sense. In the movie adaptation of Watchmen, they left a lot of the stuff as it was in the comic while cutting parts out that the movie made no sense to people who didn’t read the comic. This makes it incredibly tough to keep to the original story, and even necessitates changes.

But what my question really addresses are those adaptations which try and give their unique spin on the story, or interpret the story in some way. For example, the movie version of V for Vendetta changes the story to be less about fascism and more about big government. It is a subtle, yet important change, which made the story more poignant and enjoyable. Similarly, I noticed that in Don Giovani, the scene before the curtain was different in our video than it was when we saw it. In the video, Don Ottavio seemingly chickens out when it comes to shooting Don Giovani and instead stands there frozen in panic, letting Don Giovani walk all over him. In the Met’s version, however, Don Ottavio doesn’t shoot because Don Giovanni takes Donna Anna hostage. It is a small change which has no impact on the plot, but a major impact on the characterization of Don Ottavio. While it seems that the opera has interpretation of the libretto as a needed tradition, other mediums are not so lucky. In the case of V for Vendetta, the movie became a smash hit and was critically praised. Despite this, Alan Moore, the creator of V for Vendetta, has come out against the movie saying it ruined his story, and has refused to see any subsequent adaptations of his work. It seems that while changes like these may work, they can never make everyone happy.

In this day and age, we are living in the times of the adaptation and discussions like these come up all of the time between fans of the originals (you’ve almost undoubtedly experienced this whenever a new Harry Potter movie comes out.) Personally, I take it on a case by case basis. I’m not strongly against innovation and interpretation in my adaptations, as long as it is done well and respects the source material.

Cultural Sensitivities and Art

Posted on by
6

Recently, I came across an article describing an interesting design for two towers connected by what would be meant to look like a pixelated cloud. In this “cloud” would be public gardens, a pool, and other services for the two buildings. The idea sounded fantastic until I saw a picture of the design. It looks almost exactly like the twin towers being hit by planes on on 9/11.

Despite the fact that the designers are based in the Netherlands and the towers are to be built in South Korea, these designs have caused quite a stir. The designers have come out with an apology to those who are made uncomfortable by the towers, but they have no intention to prevent it’s construction. Which raises an interesting question: Should artists and designers be constantly worried about cultural associations that may arise from their art?

On the one hand, 9/11 was a very big deal. The entire world has heard of it and even now, 10 years later, the wounds are still fresh in our minds. But neither the Netherlands nor South Korea have any particular connection to 9/11, and the connection of their towers to the attack would not be made. It’s a really nice design and concept if you don’t have those terrible associations. Does it make sense that they should sensor their work because it has bad connotations in other contexts?

This isn’t the first time that cultural contexts has been a problem for artists. For example, the swastika was an ancient east-asian symbol of good luck before it was used by the Nazis in World War II. Because of this, no one thought it would be a problem to have the symbol on a Pokemon card back in 1999. Pokemon didn’t just stay in Asia, and in fact became very popular in the US. The card incited a major stir, causing Nintendo to discontinue that card in America, noting that what was acceptable in one culture may not be acceptable in another. In 2002, a similar incident occurred with toy pandas that came with christmas cookies. The Chinese oriented company meant no harm and immediately apologized for their cultural mistake.

You can read a bit more about the towers and it’s controversy here.

A Desire for Game Changers

Posted on by
Reply

Throughout the year we have been discussing the intersection of money, politics, and art. We have observed giant, expensive spectacles without much political influence, as well as smaller, cheaper expressions of political perspectives. It’s taken us all around the different styles of art and the different people who make it.

This article tries to look at the year in art through the same lens. The author observes how, despite the larger amount of galleries and shows than there were before, it has become more of a rehash of old trends and spectacle than it is an expressive medium. People want to cash in on older ideas instead of trying new things or making a statement. He points out that there were still some great things to come out of this year, including the Islamic art exhibit and the de Kooning retrospective (both mentioned in the article). But they were few and far between, while most of the quality was mediocre at best.

What this article really praises is the combination of art and politics, praising the Occupy Wall Street movement for producing deep, thought provoking art without the monetary ambitions of most of todays artists. The article also mentions two galleries, “Bye Bye Kitty!!! Between Heaven and Hell in Contemporary Japanese Art” and “Ostalgia”, which were all about the political and social issues that the art was addressing. Though the technical techniques were nowhere near as advanced as those of a modern artist, the expressiveness and point-fulness of the art is what makes it what it is. It requires no spectacle and impressiveness to be excellent. It finds that within the art itself.

Over the year, I’ve started to appreciate this idea a lot more. Like John Cage’s 4’33, the message and poignancy of the art can be more impressive and more important that the means used to create it. It is important to appreciate, not just what makes up the art, but what the art is.

V for the 99%

Posted on by
1

Graphic novels have been used in many different purposes by those creating them. Some are there to make a statement. Some are for pure enjoyment. Some, like Alan Moore’s V for Vendetta, are critical of government and too much centralized power. Art is, and has always been, an excellent medium though which an artist gives over a message. What is unique about V for Vendetta is how it is currently being used, not by the artist, but by the public.

Odds are that by now, you have seen at least one Guy Fawkes mask involved with some sort of protest group, whether you know what it is or not. It has become the symbol of many groups demanding change, including Anonymous, WikiLeaks , and many of the Occupy Wall Street protestors. It has jumped from the graphic novel into the real world in a very strong way, and the creators of the book have taken notice. Alan Moore, the author of V for Vendetta, has been quoted as saying, “I suppose when I was writing V for Vendetta I would in my secret heart of hearts have thought: wouldn’t it be great if these ideas actually made an impact?  It feels like a character I created 30 years ago has somehow escaped the realm of fiction.” David Lloyd, the artist who drew the book, visited Occupy Wall Street to see the masks in action.”The Guy Fawkes mask has now become a common brand and a convenient placard to use in protest against tyranny – and I’m happy with people using it,” he noted. “It seems quite unique, an icon of popular culture being used this way.”

But what is the mask and where did it come from? It starts back in 1605 when Guy Fawkes, in what has come to be known as the Gunpowder Plot, attempted to blow up parliament on November 5th. In England, this day has become Guy Fawkes day, on which children would create stuffed effigies of Guy Fawkes (wearing a Guy Fawkes mask, of course) to burn in memory of the Gunpowder plot. The mask was then used by Alan Moore in V for Vendetta as the mask worn by the titular V, who, while fighting a post apocalyptic fascist english government, actually succeeds in blowing up parliament. The mask was then used in the popular 2006 adaptation of the novel, which changed the focus from a fascist regime to big government and bug business. It is the movie adaptation that has likely inspired the recent political uses of the mask.

The idea of a group coming together and wearing all the same mask is pretty advantageous. The group becomes a collective as apposed to a scattered assortment of people, with their statement literally written on their faces. In the case of Anonymous, it also kept their identities a secret. What is most fascinating is the almost unsolvable issue being posed to Warner Brothers, the producers of the film. On the one hand, they most definitely do not agree with these groups. On the other hand, sales for these masks have skyrocketed since they have started being used by them. It’s almost ironic how Warner Brothers is making so much money off protestors who are directly against the kind of capitalist greed that Warner Brothers is participating in by taking their money.

For more on this, check out these two articles on the topic.

A Beautiful Perspective

Posted on by
6

Being an Arts in New York City class, we have been primarily focused on how New York is home to such varying styles of art, and the art contained within. What I think is sometimes missed is how New York can be made into art itself. There is so much beauty in the city, which I feel is ignored for the more obvious beauties like paintings and shows. It is important to see the cities inherent loveliness as well.

What really put this into focus was a 1 minute long timelapse video I was recently directed to. It is made up of many different shots taken from a single point in the city, namely the 51st floor of the Bank of America Tower at 1 Bryant Park. The video captures the life of the city from its single vantage point in a way that I feel is missed when walking along on the streets. It is a reminder that the city has big picture, one that can only be seen from above. Even in this one minute long video, the city screams with life and passion. But don’t take my word for it; watch the video yourself:

de Kooning and Women

Posted on by
1

The de Kooning exhibit was a fantastic experience, one which I was lucky to be able to have (Thanks again Lauren). In my opinion, the best part of de Kooning’s work is that there is no set formula for a de Kooning piece. He dabbles in just about every different type of style, and is not afraid to try new things. At one point his pieces may be characterized by sharp angles and little color. At others, it’s all about smooth curves and colorful explosions. It’s really a marvel to look at.

Having come directly from the Snapshot Day gallery where so much emphasis was put on the curation and presentation, I couldn’t help but think of the organization of the pieces in the de Kooning exhibit. Thechoice they made, which in my opinion was the right choice, was to show his works chronologically, with each room being a different period of his artistic career. It was perfect for de Kooning’s work because of all of the different styles. Almost perfectly, each period was categorized by a different style of de Kooning.

What really brings this point home are all of the pictures of women. In almost every period, at least one piececan be found which is just a woman painted in the style he used at that time. The idea that they were all painted by the same person really highlights de Kooning’s versatility as an artist. What pulls this into focus is the picture entitled Portrait of Elaine, which can be found early on in the exhibit. In it, de Kooning paints an excellent, very realistic picture of a woman sitting in a chair. It provides an excellent contrast to the other paintings, and shows that the other styles were all choices made by an artist who can draw realistically, and chooses not to. If not for that piece, I’m not sure I would have appreciated all of his other works

Macaulay Snapshot Day

Posted on by
2

On Sunday, Macaulay students from all campuses gathered at the Macaulay building to view a photo gallery made up of their own photos. The gallery was wonderfully curated by students who created a fantastically organized and beautiful presentation. In many cases, the curation was better than the photos.

In addition to viewing and enjoying, students were posed with a challenge. We were asked to use a camera to create a video “re-curation” of the gallery, putting together any photos we wanted to tell our story. I was fortunate enough to be put in a group with Ayala, Leah, and two very nice girls from City College, all of whom had very artistic perspectives to share.

It was a really great experience, which highlighted the importance of presentation in art. One photo on a desk is not the same as a photo placed in a creatively put together exhibit. Pictures can almost speak to each other when placed in certain ways. It is up to the curators to provide this experience, and in my opinion, the curators of the gallery did an excellent job.

Without further adieu, here is our video re-curation:

I would continue here with a deconstruction of the video and its point, but I’d rather let the piece speak for itself. I’m  interested in what others have to say about it anyways.

When Political Interpretations are Taken Too Far

Posted on by
1

If you are anything like me, you have not only seen the new muppet movie, but you have practically memorized the soundtrack (OK, very few of you are anything like me.) The movie has been praised almost across the board as a glorious return of an old favorite. Why is it then, that Fox News feels you shouldn’t see this movie? Because, of course, it is leftist propaganda being made to brainwash our kids. Of course.

I find this to be incredibly ridiculous. Their claim is that the movie negatively characterizes oil barons and teaches our kids that hard work should not be paid off. For one thing, the movie in no way says its wrong to dig for oil. It does however say it is bad to lie, cheat, and steal to dig for oil, just as it would be wrong to lie, cheat, and steal to save the dolphins. The only reason he is an oil baron is because the story required a reason for someone to want a piece of land. Secondly, no one criticizes Tex Richman, the villain of the film, for being rich and working hard. They criticize him for being evil. Theres a difference. Furthermore, the Muppets themselves are shown working incredibly hard to try and save their show, though they only succeed due to a change of heart by Tex Richman. If anything, this movie shows how you can work as hard as you can, and still be subject to the whims of the rich.

Fox continues to criticize shows like Captain Planet and Nickelodeons Big Green Help movement for similarly brainwashing the youth of today into trying to help keep the world clean and safe. It is so absurd that I almost felt like I was watching a clip from the Colbert Report. Whatever the case is, I can’t wait to see what Fox has to say about the Lorax movie coming out in March. If there is any children’s entertainment figure more green than the Lorax, I don’t know what it is.

 

Third Eye Blind writes an Occupy Wall Street Theme Song

Posted on by
2

In class, we keep asking where are the musicians of today when it comes to Occupy Wall Street? In the past, political movements like these have gotten large amounts of attention from musicians, with songs being written about just about every cause imaginable.

Well, Third Eye Blind seems to have been listening. They recently put out a song called “If There Ever Was a Time”, which is sort of an attempted anthem for the movement. You need only to look at the chorus to see what their message is:

If there ever was a time, it would be now
For the rest of us
If there ever was a time it would be now
‘Cause money and power are incestuous
A moment makes a movement
Or it fades out in the dark
Come on, meet me down at Zuccotti park

The song calls on the youth to come make a stand, because if they don’t, no one will. Though the song may not necessarily be the best one I’ve heard recently, it’s certainly a start. Musicians have the unique ability to give over messages over to large masses of people in a way that doesn’t bore them. This is even more true when it comes to the young who may not read the news and may not even know what’s going on. Music can spread the word in an interesting, creative way. If more musicians tried to help the cause, I believe we would see a significant increase in participation.

The song can be downloaded for free from the Third Eye Blind website.

I am Art

Posted on by
1

Last week, I was one of the lucky few to participate in the Macaulay Sing! competition in an original musical written and composed by our very own Annmarie Ericco and Mitchell Guido. Though we came in second to Hunter (who had an unbelievable performance by the way), we really put on a great show and had a wonderful time while doing.

There is something to be said about actually participating in the arts, and not just viewing it. It is a completely different experience and you can truly realize how much goes into a show. Everything is done on purpose. The lighting, the positioning, everything. Having been in my first real show, I now appreciate all of the little things that go into a real performance.

Another thing you realize is how much can go wrong without the audience realizing. We had our fair share of mishaps while putting our show on, but nothing that we didn’t bounce back from, almost seamlessly. Even scripted shows like ours require a certain amount of improv ability so that those things could be easily fixed. Luckily we had a great cast who could all think well on their feet.

If you ever have the opportunity to really do a something like this, I highly suggest you take it. There is nothing like making a joke on a stage and getting that swell from laughter from the audience. At the same time, there is nothing like having an intensely emotional scene and hearing the entire audience fall completely silent, investing themselves completely in the emotion of the scene. It was a wonderful experience and one that I hope to have the chance to do again in the future.

Should the 1% join the 99%?

Posted on by
1


Occupy Wall Street is a cultural phenomenon which has captured the attention of our country, and has had a profound effect on how we look at wealth. Having attended the Homelessness in Focus meeting on Wednesday, I really came to understand the problem these people are fighting. It is the unbelievable greed which keeps the poor poor and the rich richer. It is the unbelievably destitute conditions that this greed has left other human beings in. It is the ignorance of the general population to this problem, to the extent that most of the 99% don’t even realize they’re part of the 99%.

Obviously, news outlets have been talking about the movement for quite some time, putting it in the spotlight of the medias attention. But there is another group of people who’s attentions have been grabbed as well. That is the group of artists and celebrities. Now, whether or not they agree with the movement is an issue of politics, one that every person, regardless of position, has to think about. But unlike the general public, celebrities have the issue of not really being part of the 99%. While they may not be the 1% the Occupy Wall Street protesters have in mind, they are still mainly part of the 1%. They certainly share very little in common with the homeless seen at the Homelessness in Focus meeting, and have much more in common with those being protested against. The question then becomes how appropriate it is for celebrities to get involved or respond, especially if they are on the side of the movement.

There are those vocal celebrities who strongly support the movement and have attended Zuccotti Park to add their voices. While this doesn’t seem so bad, depending on the person, it has been viewed in varying lights. People like David Crosby and Graham Nash were accepted warmly into the demonstration, most likely due to their history at events like these. Other celebrities like Kanye West and Anne Hathaway have been viewed in a more questionable light. After making millions performing, they’re going down to protest with the common folk? It doesn’t sit well with everyone.

But there are other artists who respect the movement, and are therefore keeping their distance. The best example of this is with Christopher Nolan and the filming of the new Batman movie. There was talk for a while that Nolan might use Occupy Wall Street as a backdrop from a civil unrest scene in the film. It never happened though actor Matthew Modine has gone on record saying how close it was to coming to fruition. Despite the possibility to give the protesters a temporary job and some money, Nolan decided he didn’t want to trivialize the movement by making a film there. There were more important things going on than making a movie. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the movement, it’s hard to argue with Nolan’s logic.

It’s hard to know what the right move is for rich supporters of the movement. Maybe it’s better to stay quiet and silently support. Maybe its better to support vocally from a distance. Maybe its best to come down and support with the 99%. Whichever way you slice it, this movement is too big to be ignored by the rich and famous among us.

 

Wolverine: The Musical?

Posted on by
1

You probably know Hugh Jackman as the angry mutant amnesiac they call Wolverine from the X-Men franchise. Or maybe as the monster hunting Van Helsing. Or perhaps you’ve heard of him as a magician in a homicidal feud with Christian Bale in The Prestige. What you probably don’t know is that this rough and tough actor also has very impressive musical career.

Hugh Jackman starred in a fantastic Broadway musical called The Boy from Oz, for which he received a Tony Award for his performance as singer/songwriter Peter Allen, as well as in the London Cast Revival of Oklahoma! On top of that, he hosted the Tony Awards three times and attempted to produce a failed musical TV show called Viva Laughlin (it wasn’t very good, but it’s the thought that counts.) With all of these musicals, its a wonder how he finds time to make movies.

Currently, Mr. Jackman is back on Broadway, in a concert show simply titled  “Hugh Jackman: Back on Broadway.” Like his previous Broadway show, it is being praised by critics (including this rather gushing review), and if there is anything I can do to convince you to see this show, I will do it. I saw The Boy from Oz a while back and I can tell you how fantastic he was in both his acting and his singing. The only thing that should be keeping you from going to see this show is that due to the high demand of tickets, seats are very expensive.

Hugh Jackman is an excellent example of a lost form of actor. Back in the day, the best actors were all singers and dancers. There was a performance aspect to acting which is lost these days. People like Danny Kaye, Dick Van Dyke, and even Gene Wilder are just some of the actors who were also great performers. It’s a shame that this sort of actor is rarely seen today.

But not all is lost. Hugh Jackman may be an indicator of a new trend of performance actors. Sitcom stars Jason Segal and Neil Patrick Harris have both been seen singing and dancing in different productions, with Jason Segal coming out with his Muppet movie next week and Neil Patrick Harris having hosted the Tony Awards last year. In fact, he did an excellent duet with Hugh Jackman during his performance. Here’s to hoping that this is a true revival of a forgotten trade and not just a fad that will pass.

Here’s a link to the official site of “Hugh Jackman: Back on Broadway.”

A Rant on Pop Culture

Posted on by
2

I’ll start off by saying that I love pop culture. Some would go so far as to call me a “pop culture addict” (though I prefer the term enthusiast.) With that said, I am constantly finding the pop culture system constantly and frequently letting me down. I’ll explain.

Traditionally, the arts were something left to a small minority who could really appreciate its greatness. We’ve discussed several times in class about how the rich would hire people they respected in a certain artistic area, be it theater, music, or painting, and pay them to produce quality art. This system had its positives and negatives. On the one hand, it kept the poor away from the arts and held them back from finer culture. On the other hand, it kept the arts in the hands of the experts, and in doing so, kept the quality up.

Pop culture however has the opposite problem. It purposely gives all the ability to obtain and appreciate “the arts”, but by doing so it changed the goals of the artists. The purpose of traditional artists was to produce good art. The purpose of the “pop” artist is to please as many people as possible. It is in this point that pop culture has met it’s Achilles heal. Instead of bringing culture to the people, artists now let the people define the culture. The quality is secondary to ratings and public interest.

Why then am I a self proclaimed lover of pop culture? It seems like I should hate the entire thing and stick to the classical, more refined tastes of old. It is creative freedom given to the pop artist which truly draws me in. A pop artist has almost no bounds. They are free to think outside of the box and create things that are so brilliantly clever. TV shows, movies, and popular music have the potential to influence more than just the small elite who can afford to pay someone. They can affect the multitudes, if the artists use this power correctly.

The problem then is that when something truly great is produced, it is often ignored because it can’t appeal to the insanely broad judgment of the general populace. The most classic example is the TV show Arrested Development. The show was cancelled after just three seasons for not pulling in the ratings. Yet, as the insanely vocal small group of people who are diehard fans of the show can tell you, it is one of the greatest shows to have ever graced a television set. It simply was too clever and quirky for the typical audience member. I can tell you the exact same story with some of my other favorite TV shows, including, but not limited to, Pushing Daisies, Better Off Ted, and the recently benched Community. (I would include the fantastic space western Firefly, but that had a whole different problem facing it.) Music is having the same problem, with quality music being replaced by danceable beats and rhythms, but I’ll try to stay focused.

I’ve had this conversation with many people and they all come back the same. “If they were so good, they wouldn’t be canceled!” But thats the problem. Despite having all the freedom in the world to come up with anything they want, they still have to pander to the public. They have to put up numbers, or networks will get other shows that will. There is no room for “niche” shows like Pushing Daisies and Better Off Ted. While unbelievably clever and undeniably brilliant, they are simply too quirky for a typical audience. They would rather watch something with corny jokes and a laugh track than satire that challenges you to think.

This is my love/hate relationship with pop culture. It has such potential, but the greatness is too often lost in favor of the mediocre. I can only hope that these tastes of brilliance, however short lived, can have a lasting effect on the tastes of the public. I dream of the day where a show like Arrested Development wouldn’t get cancelled.

(I apologize for my lack of pictures and videos. I just thought the post was long enough without them.)

Are Video Games Art?

Posted on by
1

For a while I have been contemplating whether video games could be considered an artistic medium. Obviously it is very difficult to classify all video games together, but can a video game be considered a piece of art? As a person who truly enjoys a good video game, I am compelled to say yes, but I’m hardly being objective.

A video produced by PBS seems to think it can be too. In its discussion, the video points out that while video games are certainly different than books or other typical medium in terms of storytelling, it doesn’t mean they are worse. In plot based games, a video game may even be better at giving over  story than a typical method. By giving the player choices, the player feels the full weight of the decisions made by the characters. It puts the responsibility of their future in players hands and integrates them into the narrative. It is much easier to truly connect to characters and their development if you have something to do with it. In more creative games, like Minecraft, a player is given an open canvas to produce whatever they want within a system. Its like using paint to make a picture, except instead of paint a player uses blocks, and instead of a painting you can really make anything. If thats not art, I’m not sure what is.

While this by no means gives free license to call any video game “art”, it is a reminder that just because something is a video game, or any other non typical medium for that matter, it doesn’t mean it can’t be art too.

New York Comic Con

Posted on by
2

This weekend marked New York’s celebration of a less traditional kind of art: the comic book. Geeks, nerds, and fans of all kind came down to the Javits Center in New York City to take part in a one of a kind exhibition of all things nerd. Superheroes, comic books, movies, and video games of all kind were represented over the three day extraveganza that was Comic Con.

Unfortunately, like every year since I’ve started my slight nerd obsession, I was unable to attend Comic Con. I was busy with my religious holiday over its first two days, and had too much work to attend on Sunday. My brother however did make it for Sunday’s festivities. When asked to comment, he said, “It was one of the awesomest things I have ever done.” While perhaps not the most grammatically correct statement, it certainly fits.

Some of the many uniquely dressed attendees of Comic Con

Some may argue that comics are not a true form of art. I would like to remind those people that the graphic novel Watchmen is on time magazines list of the top 100 novels of since 1923. The comic book is just as valid a medium as a painting or a book. It is a different way of presenting an idea or story, which, like any medium, has it’s strengths and weaknesses. Just like I can’t imagine a comic book version of shakespearean plays, I can’t imagine a quality Superman story in typical novel form (I have read the Death of Superman novel. It just wasn’t nearly as compelling as the comic.) In the case of Watchmen, the visuals added an amazing amount of depth to an already incredible plot. One entire chapter is written with the second half directly mirroring the structure and art styles of its corresponding panels. None of that could have been possible in a standard book format.

Pop culture has been taking from comic books for years. No one can forget the old Batman TV show or the old Superfriends cartoon. Superhero films are currently some of the most highly successful films out there and that trend seems to be continuing for the time being. My hope is that one day, people will stop feeling the need to steal from comic books and appreciate the format itself for its unique abilities and wonderful potential. Until then, there will always be Comic Con.