Printed Comics

1. The nave is modifications of semblance

In modern times the daily newspaper strip, and more recently the comic book, provide the major outlet for sequential art. As the form's potential has become more apparent, better quality and more expensive production have been introduced. This, in turn, has resulted in slick full-color publications that appeal to a more sophisticated audience, while black-and-white comic books printed on good paper have found their own constituency. Comics continue to grow as a valid form of reading. (Will Eisner 1985, 7)

There is more: Annessa A. Babick notes:

In 1985, comic books finally got their own full-length discussion within academic literature in Will Eisner's Comics as Sequential Art. Eisner's work looked at comics as art and literary forms with sequential expression. He marked comics as literary forms because their stories bear strong resemblance to those of literature. Douglas Wolk contradicts Eisner by arguing that comics are no more literary than movies or operas, and he denotes scripts for comics as comparable to film scripts. But the finished product of comics is different from that of traditional books and narratives, making it a unique genre. Samuel R. Delaney goes so far as to call comics "paraliterary." (Comic literature) (Babick 2014, "Comic literature")

A distinction:

[C]omic books are voluntary purchases, as opposed to comic strips, which are included inside newspapers. Comic books also use events from real life to glamorize, rally, and even educate. Babick 2014, "Introduction")

Opinions differ. A cartoon series is a prolonged work of art and craft. Art is marked by representation, hence by scheinen, by some form or presentation, semblance or other means of 'seeming'. This is because a phenomenon or "thing" is different from its representation. (Two notable exceptions: Art trouvé, 'found objects,' also called readymades. They are objects presented outside of their original contexts, and selected and designated as art). Thus, a deep look finds: "Art is what is presented as art." Cartoons and other forms and outlets of art are marked by scheinen, by illuding. It can be accomplished in a large variety of ways, like different perspectives.

We find room for artist, artwork, viewer, and philosopher around the nave of scheinen. They can interact in various ways with one another (fig. 1).(

The nave: In figure 1, scheinen is at the centre. Scheinen, semblance, is a wide-spanning word that covers illuding art products of many sorts. En passant, in some cases, quite old originals might have been less crude than their print versions. With newer cartoons such differences may be negligible.

When a viewer of a cartoon stip has a look at it, some Vergnügung through scheinen is a gate. "Amusement due to art with its semblances and much else at hand."

Cartoons viewed as artwork: Many cartoon strips can be viewed as works of art, and subjected to relevant measures and standards of art criticism. If so, it may be all right to discern between

• The artist;
• His or her oeuvre of one or many cartoons, be they single, grouped, or his total production;
• The possible and likely receivers (viewers) and what goes on in them, or in some of them, if at all.

Even well known art critics have failed to make wise distinctions, for example those who for many years called Picasso's art devilish and - well - insane, and thereby attacked the artist as such as well, because the form of art he represented at the time (cubism) was groundbreaking, and hence unusual. Conventionalism failed to credit it as duly as can be. The fit perspective: Go for understanding the oeuvre and let the artist be - that could be wise. Consider:

When the National Gallery in London organized the first major post-war Picasso show in England, one newspaper . . . damned his art as the work of the devil, dismissed piggy-nosed portraits as the imaginings of a schizophreninc, and declared that such work should not be publicly exhibited in England . . .

One American critic called him the "devil incarnate" in 1910; and the "New York Times", generally a restrained and proper paper, gnashed that he was the very devil and that his audacity was breathtaking . . . Not many years later, German critics (and not even the worst) were busy perpetuating the usual equation of visual deconstruction with insanity, viewing Picasso himself as a neurotic . . .: "People are no longer locked away in asylums. Nowadays they found Cubism." (Warnke 1995, I:10, 12)

See? Critics lacked modesty.

Human activity and much else on the face of the earth and further into space may be represented in cartoons, be it good or bad, beautiful or ugly, beneficial or destructive. Not a few cartoon artists may be said to have satisfied their aesthetic capabilities in creating cartoons, and left it there. However, slogans like "cartoons are expression through scheinen", can be used to designate the product of that process, that is, the completed strips or series of strips. That use of the terms is found in the remark "Cartoon art is a source of enjoyment to me."

The cartoon philosopher: The task of the philosopher of cartoons is to provide conceptual foundations (underlying thoughts) by

1. examining the basic concepts underlying a cartoon critic's activities to enable him to write more intelligibly about the cartoons viewed as cartoon arts;
2. by arriving at salient conclusions about cartoon art, aesthetic value, expression, and the other concepts that a cartoon critic may employ.

The cartoon philosopher may be a cartoon critic too. In expressing herself about cartoons from a more or less elevated position, at least a surmisedly elevated position, the critic presupposes that she is dealing with clear concepts. To attain to them is the task of the philosopher of cartoons. By this the cartoon philosopher is more fundamental than the more ephemeral cartoon critic, for that critic's decrees presuppose answers to formative questions set by the cartoon philosophers. A critic's estimation of cartoons may be mostly evaluative, as when she gives reasons for saying that the cartoon work in question is good or bad, or better or worse than another one.

In the figure, the "philosopher" has to be branched out for a better mental grip. First of all, the philosophy of cartoon art needs to be distinguished from cartoon art criticism. ◇

Let us say the cartoon critic has accessed the main concepts of cartoon criticism, and thus passes as a plausible renderer of cartoon philosophy too, if needs be. This suggests that a cartoon critic contains many facets of the basic philosopher somehow. It can be illustrated thus:

The test of "cartoon philosopher" success appears to be increased understanding or enhanced appreciation of the work in question.

Cartoon art is not limited to visual expressions; music and plots, structural grasps and other facets of drama and poetry may intermingle in it. This is so in films made on top of cartoon figures. One may also see paintings furnished of formerly two-dimensional, simple cartoon figures and scenes, and sculptures, toys, and many other related objects for sale.

The test in practice is not how they were intended by their creators, but how they function according to experience. What is more, appreciation differs, just as understanding does. That brings us to the viewer problems:

The viewer: The viewer is somebody. He or she may be a single individual or part of a group. What a viewer gets out of a presented cartoon series or a single strip, varies with such as background, appreciation capacity (maturity included), the being informed and experienced with cartoon varieties, and so on.

The various aspects involved

Figure 1 shows four aspects of cartoon philosophy. They are: (1) Philosopher – Artwork – Scheinen; (2) Artwork – Viewer – Scheinen; (3) Viewer – Artist – Scheinen; and (4) Artist – Philosopher – Scheinen. We may write 'presentation' - and quite often 'semblance' - for scheinen, and consider the various aspects fields to explore.

1. Philosopher – Artwork – Scheinen: What are the relationships involved between art philosophers (critics), artworks of much the same sort, and scheinen? And what are the favorable things to include, for example? What do philosophers of this and that school express concerning the artwork's scheinen (presentation, genre, style, technique, etc.)?

   Art philosophers have come up with (a) methods of ascertaining what works are about - in three steps - as did Erwin Panofsky. Another, Heinrich Wöllflin, managed to come up with (b) sets of criteria to discern hallmarks of two different styles of art. You may follow these two links for clarifying examples.

   In part, the response you get depends in part on the critic himself, and in part on the work of art he subjects to critique. It often shows up. Different art critics judge differently, and then many of them may slowly conform to a "prevalent view" somehow, albeit with variations.

2. Artwork – Viewer – Scheinen: How do different sorts of viewers respond to the artwork, that is it's scheinen? For example, that a painting is sold on an art auction for millions of dollars, or is kept massively protected in Louvre, may make people regard the painting highly even though the painting is much less regarded by little children. Different viewers respond differently, and opinions may change too.

3. Viewer – Artist – Scheinen: Viewers and artists may not appreciate the same elements of style, motif, techniques displayed - ways of painting, etc.

4. Artist – Philosopher – Scheinen: Different art philosophers (critics) and artists may not appreciate the same things either. For example, for a decade, art critics called the painter Picasso devilish and insane after his breakthrough (above). They failed to tell of the art along relevant lines, and attacked the artist instead. That is far too bad. They should know better, but proved they did not. That is quite something worth considering.

Hence, to evaluate a piece of art, including cartoons as works of art, there are many things (aspects) to consider before venturing to express oneself or even buy the piece. Consider this a helping hand.

2. Most sorts of cartoon works may be subjected to tidy criticism

On what does the cartoon philosopher direct his attention? "One or more cartoons," is the ready answer; but what are cartoons and what distinguishes it from all other things? Answers may differ greatly. A beginning distinction is between fine cartoons and useful cartoons. It corresponds to the dichotomy between fine art and useful art.

The critic says that a given work is expressive, or good, or bad. But the cartoon philosopher (alias philosopher of cartoon art) asks further into what is meant by saying that a work of cartoon art is expressive and how one determines whether it is. And what is meant by "good" and "bad" in any context in a changing world? Such questions or topics are debated, and opinions given.

This shows that cartoon works may be analysed and evaluated.

However, the fact that cartoon works are fixed to representations (variants of scheinen), makes enduring views few. Despite this impermanence, one steady aim of cartoon criticism so far has been to get at a more adequate understanding or enjoyment of a work (or classes of works) of cartoon art. Will Eisner:

(Eisner 1985,

Sometimes it is not a single cartoon work but an entire class of cartoon works in a certain style or genre that is being elucidated; the cartoon productions of a whole period, as settled on. ◇

There are very many ways to respond to cartoon works: Informatively, aesthetically, morally, good-naturedly, and humorously are just some of them. It depends on the focus, angling and upbringing of the soulful and not soulful critic, in part.

3. Apt cartoons tend to enhance the value of most presentations

USEFUL cartoons can also be enjoyed as objects of beauty, and thus reflect both aesthetic and utilitarian dimensions: you may find that cartoons are used to pep up or enhance the value of text books; used as the main focus in some instructional presentations, and further.

So

Hovering scheinen may be criticised a lot for not being the real thing, after the presentations are done and argued for and against. "Do not marry yourself to a structure, an idea, or even an outline," advises Ivan Brunetti (2011, 67). And "when you sit down to draw, you should 'dress for work.' Have respect for your craft. Put on a pair of pants." (Brunetti 2011, 71)