What follows is the first installment of What Me, Comics?, an essay based on Saturday's Formsem lecture. Written by yours truly; read on:

WHAT ME, COMICS?
As we attempt to promote public awareness of comics as a valid medium of expression, worthy of both literary and artistic merit, and perhaps more importantly, as we attempt to tap the vast potential of comics as a medium, we find that a formal definition of comics is integral. That we know it is a powerful medium of expression is not enough; we must know exactly what comics is, what sets it apart from other media such as film or TV, books or paintings, and what makes for its essential parts and properties, so that we may better focus our vision, in line with the aforementioned goals.

In seeking a definition for what comics is, we narrows down certain options by laying out what comics is not.

Comics, of course, is not radio. This much should be obvious, but in the explicit statement above we note one essential difference between the two, and corollarily, hit upon an essential element of comics: radio is primarily aural, a medium dependent on sound. In contrast, comics is visual, relying on the audience's perception of pictures and to a lesser extent, words. We shall be revisiting the latter - words - in a succeeding section.

COMICS IS VISUAL...

...But comics is not film. Neither is it theatre, television, nor any number of similar forms of media in existence. For film, television, etcetera, share a similar trait in that they, while also visual in nature, are unlike comics in that they feature moving images. The presence of animation. Comics, on the other hand, are static, of which can be attributed to the pictures, images that compose it.

COMICS IS COMPOSED OF STATIC PICTURES OR IMAGES...

...And so are, apparently, pictures, paintings, and photos. For that matter, so are storybooks, which are themselves composed of static pictures or images, illustrating a story told in prose.

Of the former, we may argue that pictures, paintings, and photos, can not be comics because they are precisely what they are - pictures, paintings, and photos; rather, comics are composed of these such pictures, paintings, and photos. A sequence, even a sequence of two, of these imagery make up comics. What needs to be noted, though, are the manner by which the images are placed in sequence. In an art gallery, for instance, one may note a series of paintings on one wall to be a sequence of imagery and thus, comics. However, such imagery is more often than not intended to be appreciated and taken within the context of the work itself, without consideration of imagery that came before or after, in front, beside, or behind it. Comics relies on the idea that the series of imagery one sees has been intentionally placed in sequence, to be taken as a whole.

COMICS IS COMPOSED OF STATIC PICTURES OR IMAGES PLACED IN DELIBERATE SEQUENCE.

Thus, the storybook is also taken out of consideration, for illustrations in storybooks are almost only decorative in function, an afterthought to the prose story which it illustrates. They are never meant to be seen as a deliberate sequence of images; rather, they exist to enhance the story. Likewise, in novels or short stories or poems, the words are most important.

In comics, the reverse is almost always true. We have, of course, established the idea that comics is composed, essentially, of a series of images in deliberate sequence. What of words, then? Certainly, words - or more specifically, the interplay between words and pictures - play an integral role in the growth of the medium; however, to say that words are essential to our definition of comics would exclude the "silent greats," comics by authors such as Peter Kuper and Sergio Aragones, who have always focused their energies in creating visual comics stories that use little to no words.

In the end, Scott McCloud, a scholar on the medium of comics and author of Understanding Comics, offers the most compelling definition for comics. He defines it as "juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence, intended to convey information and/ or to produce an aesthetic response in the viewer."

Scott McCloud even takes our understanding of comics one step further, in that just as our definition of comics narrows down our view of what it is based on what it says, it also opens up a lot of things, based on what it doesn't say.

For instance, it says nothing about GENRE -- no restrictions on comics being just about superheroes, science fiction, fantasy, and funny animals. We can make historical, or educational comics (about economics or math, even!) if we so much as set our minds to doing it. Nor does it say anything about the MATERIALS we can use -- nothing about 11x17 Bristol Boards, inks, pens, or Adobe Photoshop. STYLES are also an open matter -- pointilist, expressionist, impressionist, whatever floats your boat.

And this, in my opinion, is what should be part of your personal manifesto, your credo, your motto. That yes, comics is just one thing - it is only just one medium for expression, after all - but when used properly, when genre, materials, and style are pushed to the limits of what it can do, comics can also be everything.

COMICS IS JUST ONE THING, BUT IT CAN ALSO BE EVERYTHING.

Thus we are presented with a new conundrum, of which a solution will be presented in a few days. Feel free to offer solutions of your own, in the meantime, and mayhap you arrive at your own definition for what our beloved comics really is. Cheers.