This is one of those articles that I right for pure thought. I really want you to think about I’m going to say, and the implications involved for the future of this art form (webcomics) we all enjoy.
Here is a common question, one you may have asked before: “I make webcomics. So what am I? Do I call myself an illustrator or cartoonist or graphic novelist or a comic creator or simply an artist? Is there a name for what we do?”
The more I make comics to more I realize the importance of WHAT we all call ourselves. This isn’t some self-important, snobbery post, this is something that we all as “people who make comics and display them on the web” need to take a second and seriously consider.
This snippet is taken directly from my college thesis The Art of Webcomics:
…comics as sequential art have a lineage that predates the written word. Scott McCloud argues that writing forms such as cuneiform and hieroglyphics evolved from pictures representing the environment, and that the first forms of non-verbal communication occurred as sequential, visual characterization, pre-dating any alphabet.[i] Wolk laments that comics have such a lack of published, distinguished history that he does not even have the right words with which to write about comics: “…it’s not a bad idea, exactly, to talk about comics using some of the same language we use to talk about prose and film and non-narrative visual art; sometimes it fits (In fact, we have to, because the language of comics criticism is still young and scrawny—it’s so underdeveloped there’s no good adjective that means ‘comics-ish.’).”[ii]
[i] Understanding Comics, 10-15, 131, 142.
[ii] Wolk, 16.
I took the liberty of bolding the important passage. “The language of comics criticism,” (“comics,” referring to shorthand of “the art of comics”), or really, just “the language of comics.” We don’t HAVE the kind of vocabulary we deserve. I am NOT a cartoonist or a “webcartoonist”—I don’t make cartoons. The original definition of “cartoon” may include what I do, but the present and connotative one does not. I am NOT a graphic novelist. I make a graphic novel, yes, but mine is on the web. Would I then be a “web graphic novelist?” A “graphic webnovelist?” No! *smashes keyboard in frustration* Enough with the titles and the labeling and the “trying to make sound what I do academic and noteworthy!” Comics ARE noteworthy, and so are webcomics!
For the final and last time, I am a webcomicker. That is spelled with a “K,” or else it is said “webcomiser” by English rules.
What I encourage you all as “people who make comics and display them online” is for once and for all decide what to call yourselves. I encourage this word to be a derivative of WHAT you make (Paint, painting, painter; Webcomic, webcomicking, webcomicker.) WHY I encourage this is because I am tired of people “looking down” on our craft. In academic circles, not only is the “so-called” art of comics not worthy of attention, but WEBcomics are even worse! (“Holy cow, you mean to say ANYONE can make one?!”) Yes, Hollywood may be increasing the exposure of comics as a whole, but we are not all superhero comics! Marvel and DC are companies—not an art form! So be proud of what you do. Its work, hard work, often done by a single person. A webcomicker doesn’t just draw or just script or just letter or just build the website; a webcomicker often does all of the above.
But, and this is also important, a name for ourselves will never stick unless we use it. If people won’t give comics the respect or vocabulary they deserve, force it.
Bah!
March 5th, 2009 - 4:02 pm
I just call myself a writer.
I write many things. Some for fun, some for profit, some for fun and profit. Some are comics, some are plays, some are prose, some are songs.
It’s just a whole heckuva lot easier to put them all together in one bundle: writer.
But part of that comes from that I’ve tried using the term “webcomicker” to describe myself, and it just didn’t feel right. On one hand, that’s only part of what I do. On the other hand, there are so many people who actually ARE webcomickers and I’m just not in their league when it comes to my “webcomicking”.
Not sure if any of this makes sense, but there it is.
~ Ben
March 5th, 2009 - 4:29 pm
As one who doesn’t see the difference between a comic made for a physical piece of paper and a computer screen, I don’t see much of a point for this term. A comic is still a comic; sure there are some things that you can do on a computer that you can’t in print – but it still comes down to sequential images combined with writing (usually.)
I don’t see a need to reinvent the wheel; terms for what we are already exist.
“Writer” and “Artist/Illustrator” – Sure there’s also cartoonist and the like, but for the most part it’s still pretty standard.
Even most print comics simply use credits that say “Written by” and “Artist” (Or even Illustrated by:)
I guess you can use the term ‘webcomiker’ as you like, but I don’t really seeing it catch on or being as respected as you might like it to be.
March 5th, 2009 - 4:30 pm
I really have to question the point of a specialized term for comic artists (or cartoonists or illustrators or whatever) that publish on the web. It’s useful shorthand, I guess, but do we really need to differentiate between traditional comic artists (or cartoonists or illustrators or whatever) and web comic artists?
What’s the point? What differentiates your medium and the way you present your work from traditional material in so great a way that we need totally separate terms for each? You can call yourself a “webcomicker” all you want but the label has no intrinsic value; it’s meaningless. What you are is an artist that makes comics in a particular medium (the web, in this case).
March 5th, 2009 - 8:30 pm
Heh. We were just trying to define what it means to be a professional webcomic creator over at the the webcomiclist forums and we were floundering a bit because apparently the terms professional, webcomic, and succesful have different meanings depending on the user.
But I think that there might be a point in the future where the terms comic artist and webcomic artist might converge so perhaps definition isn’t needed as much?
But if your definition of webcomicker includes everyone that can draw something and able to post it on the web, then I can’t but help feel that this field will always be looked down on because of the reason you stated: everyone can do it. That includes bad artists as well as good artists. Those making a living with it and those for whom it’s just a hobby.
March 5th, 2009 - 11:20 pm
OMG, I had this huge long reply to all you guys and accidentally closed the browser and now I have a headache. I will re-write my thoughts tomorrow D:
Short reply to all ‘o you: (Kezisms from here on out) All webcomics are comics, not all comics are webcomics. When a person scans their print comic to show online at a default drunkduck site, that is by definition a webcomic, but the creator is NOT a webcomicker. A webcomicker handles the script, the art, the lettering, the publishing, the distribution, the webSITE and the advertising. THAT is what makes a webcomicker different from a comic creator. What makes webcomics different than comics is the method of distribution, the creation (usually), the format, followthrough and publishing, and occasionally, even animation. All print comics can be fully made into webcomics, but NOT all webcomics can be reproduced as print comics (Argon Zark! anyone?)
Therein lies the difference in the art fields.
March 6th, 2009 - 1:45 am
Yeah, but webcomic/webcomicking/webcomickers are just such terrible words… it wouldn’t be half so bad if they were better words, I think.
General Rule of English: Attaching the prefix ‘web-’ before anything makes it’s average quality worse. Look what has happened to the proud logs, novels and journalism.
March 6th, 2009 - 3:01 pm
I see where you’re going Kez, but I still don’t see the need for a separate term.
It’s just using a different medium to present the product. Someone who colors on a computer or uses a physical paint brush are still both ‘artists’. Someone who uses vectors vs drawing free hand are still both ‘artists’.
And as far as the one person handling all aspects, they’re no different than the comic artist who writes & draws his own strip and handles distribution himself. It just means they’re taking on more than one job, not that they need a term to encompass all of that. And event then it doesn’t work as there are many comic artists on the web who work in teams – one writer, one artist, etc. It’s the same as print.
I think by trying to segregate ourselves out using new terms, it hurts the product. We draw comics and we publish them. The only difference is it’s on a computer instead of on the web – it’s true that there are some things you can do on the web that you can not on paper, but there are things that can be done on paper that can’t on the computer.
But I guess what all that comes down to – is just because the distribution method changes does NOT mean that the job, or title changes. A writer is still a writer whether they print to a book, web, comic, or public speech. The same goes for artist or if you prefer, illustrator. :)
March 7th, 2009 - 10:41 am
@electricpanda: I’d disagree that prefixing a term with “web” automatically reduces its quality. The web is a more accessible distribution network than, say, traditional print, so the average quality is bound to be lower as just about anyone can publishing anything on the web. That doesn’t mean you can’t have weblogs, webnovels, or webjournalists that are as good as traditional counterparts, just that they’re much harder to pick out of the glut of available options.
@KEZ: I think your first example is a great explanation of why a unique term for “webcomickers” doesn’t make any sense. With the options available today for self-publishing, it’d be relatively easy for most comic artists to handle the script, art, letter, publishing, distribution, and advertising. The only thing differentiating most “webcomickers” from traditional independent comic artists is the method of distribution.
(Yes, web distribution is infinitely more accessible and practical for most people than self-publishing printed material, but that’s not the point. The point is that the way the work is being distributed–web vs print–is the primary differentiator for most webcomics, and it’s not enough to justify a unique term.)
Something like Aargon Zark! is a blending of mediums, particularly sequential art and animation. Something like that certainly couldn’t be reproduced in print, but it could be reproduced (for example) as an interactive DVD/game (which would be pretty cool XD). There’s nothing about it that makes it uniquely “web” content (apart from only being available on the web at the moment).
April 16th, 2009 - 11:54 pm
First of all, I think webcomicker is a delightful word; it makes me think of magic.
Second of all, I like it because it is an in-between sort of word. Yes, artist covers it; the word artist covers bloody everything down to people who are particularly good at removing grime from your engine parts. It is a broad word with many wars going on at it’s margins, hence discussions of “real” art. Writing however is specific to words, penciling to pencils, inking to ink, coloring to colors… all things that an individual might do in the pursuit of a comic (even if they do it all in photoshop). An individual who does all of these things… makes comics. A comic-maker. A comicker. One who mimics life and puts in down and pushed it out for all to see.
I think the addition of web- balances the word out nicely, as well. Though, there is another possiblity:
Webcomicatrix and Webcomicator.