Art

"Comics speak, without qualm or sophistication, to the innermost ears of the wishful self. The response is like that of a thirsty traveler who suddenly finds water in the desert - he drinks to satiation."

"Boys young and old satisfy their wish thoughts by reading comics. If they go crazy for Wonder Woman it means they're longing for a beautiful exciting girl who's stronger than they are."

"As regards the female characters thing, I'm afraid I think it's giving male creators a bum deal. The list does read pretty shocking at first until you think of everything the male heroes have gone through, too, in terms of deaths/mutilations/etc. Granted, the female stuff has more of a sexual violence theme and this is something people should probably watch out for, but rape is a rare thing in comics and is seldom done in an exploitative way."

"By mid-1942 nearly all comic book heroes had changed into patriotic citizens that were willing...to accept their new societal roles."

"The episodic nature of Black Jack’s medical experiments backed up by accurate medical detail, bear more resemblance to television shows such as ER or House MD than to any North American comic book; medical narratives such as these simply do not exist in the US or Canadian comic media."

"Justin Wadlow, a professor at the French (UPJV) in Amiens and a well-known scholar of comics, explained how books combining texts and comics as a new form of art have been used to spread deep ideas and raise awareness of social issues. He suggested that the essence of [the] Tai Ji Men culture may also be illustrated and presented to the world through these new media."

"I reserve the right to refuse to like a comic just because there is a girl/woman in it, or someone's decided to take a limp stab at marketing it to girls/women. (...) Push past those posters of giant titties and that one of the impossible pose where some gal is displaying her butt, crotch AND breasts, and that one where the girl looks like she's been oiled up and spanked. Push past all that, my sisters! (...) There, my sisters, under all those eye lemons and tree-killers are comics you will like. Don't hold it against your retailer if he or she is keeping the store going with chromium multi-variant oops-my-tittie-fell-out 1-to-4 short-packed speculator specials — get in there and grab that Previews and you will find something for you, and by God order it and get all your girlfriends to do the same and your store will still be in business after the superhero readers turn 18 and start reading the Mangerotica books and the speculators have left to sell their Beanie Babies to pay the rent! (...) Of course, always give your business to the store that makes it easy to get what you want, and doesn't offended your eyeballs with faux-core (as opposed to soft core) porn. Thank you."

"...the history of comics is mostly just a history of crap."

"...'comic' simply means funny, so the word is inadequate. To tack on the word 'adult' has resulted in a style of magazine suitable for only some adults, glossy comics barely containing their airbrushed breasts, leaving little room for genuine content."

"Something in his mind had snapped and he began collecting comics."

"WE BELIEVE: Your editors sincerely believe that the claim of these crusaders . . . that comics are bad for children...is nonsense. If we, in the slightest way, thought that horror comics, crime comics, or any other kind of comics were harmful to our readers, we would cease publishing them and direct our efforts toward something else! And we're not alone in our belief. For example: Dr. David Abrahamsen, eminent criminologist, in his book, "Who Are The Guilty?" says, "Comic books do not lead to crime, although they have been widely blamed for it . . . In my experience as a psychiatrist, I cannot remember having seen one boy or girl who has committed a crime, or who became neurotic or psychotic . . . because he or she read comic books." A group led by Dr. Freda Kehm, Mental Health Chairman of the Ill. Congress of the P.T.A., decided that living room violence has "a decided beneficial effect on young minds." Dr. Robert H. Feli, director of the National Institute of Mental Health, said that horror comic do not originate criminal behavior in children . . . in a way, the horror comics may do some good . . . children use fantasy, as simulated by the "comics" as a means of working out natural feelings of aggressiveness. We also believe that a large portion of our total readership of horror and crime comics is made up of adults. We believe that those who oppose comics are a small minority. Yet this minority is causing the hysteria. The voice of the majority . . . you who but comics, read them, enjoy them, and are not harmed by them . . . has not been heard!"

"The (Communist) "Daily Worker" of July 13, 1953 said that comics play the conscious role of: "...Brutalizing American youth, the better to prepare them for military service in implementing our government's aims of world domination, and to accept the atrocities now being perpetrated by American soldiers and airmen in Korea under the flag of the United Nations." This article also quotes Gershon Legman (who claims to be a ghost writer for Dr. Fredrick Wertham, the author of a recent bast against comics published in "The Ladies Home Journal"). This same G. Legman, in issue #3 of "Neurotica," published in autumn 1948, said: "The child's natural character...must be distorted to fit civilization . . . fantasy violence will paralyze his resistance, divert his aggression to unreal enemies and frustrations, and in this way prevent him from rebelling against parents and teachers . . . this will siphon off his resistance against society, and prevent revolution.""

"What we heard was that people didn’t want any more diversity. They didn’t want female characters out there. That’s what we heard, whether we believe that or not ... We saw the sales of any character that was diverse, any character that was new, our female characters, anything that was not a core Marvel character, people were turning their nose up against."

"Both companies could be more judicious in pairing artists and writers for sustained periods, promoting series outside of the usual channels, and warmly engaging with fans. Instead of simply telling people to buy their books, they could instruct new audiences how. And they could listen to what new audiences say they want: diversity not just in racial, religious, or sexual terms, but also in terms of the types of stories told: Is there really any more harm in publishing a comic where Captain America has a romantic cup of coffee with his boyfriend Bucky than one where he’s a Nazi?"

"You know, I distrust people who 'read' comics … you don't read a comic book. You look at a comic book. While you're looking at a comic, sure, you read the words; as well, you learn to look at the panels in a certain order, in a certain way … if you start out to 'read' a comic book, you're starting out with the wrong mind-set."

"In movies, television, and comics, the operative factor is what some film semiologists have taken to calling 'the gaze.' The gaze is a combination of the gaze of the viewer at the comics page, or television tube, or film screen, modulated and directed by the looks that the characters give to each other and by various objects. I look at character X who looks at situation Y (and character X) in a way that I wouldn't have before. The point, of course, is that the movie gaze, the TV gaze, and the comics gaze are three very different processes. What makes the comic book gaze the priveleged one in my estimation is that the viewer has the greatest control over the comic book gaze, greater than any of the other two. Viewers can control how far way or close to hold the page, whether to go backwards and re-gaze -- and going back in a comic book is a very different process from going back in a novel to re-read a previous paragraph or chapter."

"...in a visual medium, a comics format … the writer works for the artist, in the same that the writer in a movie works for the director."

"The viewer is a 'co-producer" of the comics text at a level of involvement and intensity just through the nature of the medium itself."

"You can go into slow motion or fast motion in a comic book in a way you can't in a movie without drawing attention to it. You can have six panels in a row where the actions are a half second apart, or you can skip years between panels and it just doesn't have the same egregious quality, where, in a movie, Peckinpah slows down the murder and it seems that the body collapse in slow motion; it seems like an entirely different thing when you do that on film and when you do that on the comics page."

"Her husband had been willing to indulge her affection for the comics so long as it was just her, but now their children were growing up and starting to read and he was not convinced that people having adventures in skintight costumes were altogether appropriate. His feeling was that his wife would have to stop reading it, and she was heartbroken because she had an equally strong commitment to the fictional characters she had been enjoying all these years. When you come face to face with that kind of circumstance, it has to be treated with respect. It's like singing on stage and realizing you had an impact on your audience, and using that as an excuse to do your craft better than before."

"[t]he standards of comics include inventiveness, originality, and consistency. The best comics really are great artworks — great by the intrinsic standards of that art form."

"...the whole small press movement...[is] the first real upheaval in this country of Comics as a genuine Art - Art being to me a thing which is a lively part of life while commenting on life - as opposed to comics as journalism-cartooning or comics as a collecting-hobby or comics as boys power fantasies."

"The syllogism that says "Comics are sequential art, Trajan's column is sequential art, therefore Trajan's column is comics" is such a glaring fallacy that I'm surprised it's gotten this far."

"The form restricts itself at every turn. For instance, the artist sits before his blank page. If his first picture is a big square one all the way across then he has severely limited his second panel to having to fit in the letterbox space along the bottom. If he divides that in two then that third panel is looking like a sad and defeated cornered animal. That's about all i see when I look at comic books now. Obviously the artist doesn't do it that way; he plans the whole page simultaneously. But it tends to read like he planned it that way, and that's all that counts."

"...the concept of what comics is gets narrower as we go along. Each writer on the subject who defines comics wants to exclude something. McCloud excludes the single panel so Family Circus and Far Side are out. Blackbeard says there must be word balloons so Prince Valiant is out. Harvey says there has to be a visual-verbal balance. Somebody else says there must be no redundancy of information with words and pictures repeating each other. This is crap. Pictures have illustrated words and words have explained pictures since the beginning of time. Somebody reads a dull comic and extrapolates rules from it. Who do they think they are? There are all these people trying to be the rule-makers and the end result is bad for the art of Comics."

"I don't think that we should seek to define comics on a formal basis. I think that some of the best comics do not involve "sequential images" which is the basis of every formal definition of comics."

"An illustrator is someone who takes a story and visualizes it. In a comic, the drawing is the story; it doesn’t illustrate it."

"...if the form is to say something important, rather than just involve itself in the kinetic thrill of drawn characters chasing each other, then we have to think harder."

"I didn't have a problem with rejection, because when you go into an audition, you're rejected already. There are hundreds of other actors. You're behind the eight ball when you go in there."

"At the audition, your assignment is to find something new in the song. Something you've never noticed before. A breath carried over, a thought that ties the whole thing together. Then take the risk and do it."

"A film is a boat which is always on the point of sinking - it always tends to break up as you go along and drag you under with it."

"This analysis has highlighted some unique trends in the global cinema sector. First, there is a tendency for the “global film industry” (dominated by Hollywood productions) to produce sequels, prequels and adaptations (non-original ideas) that are targeted to mass media, children and youth, resulting in a concentration of world production. Second, film production is highly concentrated with 7% of the countries with regular film production making 55% of all feature films globally. India itself produced 20% of all films worldwide. Blockbusters outside of the USA have mainly been USA-produced comedies, breaking records all over the world. National productions or coproductions that are not distributed by Hollywood major studios have had almost no circulation beyond national borders. In the period 2005-2011, world admissions dropped by 12.8%, while box office revenues rose by 27.8% (average ticket price increased by 46%, especially since the 3D boom). Market concentration is still very high; Top 10 countries represented around 75% of world box office and 85% of world admissions. The concentration for admissions slowly increased from 85% to 90% between 2005 and 2011. Similar to patterns in the world macro-economy, the BRIC group (Brazil,the Russian Federation, India and China) is increasing its market share of the world film market (both production and admissions). China is the main star of this story: based on conservative estimates, by early 2020 the Asiatic giant will surpass USA as the main film market in the world. Other regions, like Latin America , have improved their film market indicators, but they are still low (except for Brazil and Mexico) in comparison to other regions. There are many individual countries that had impressive box office growth (21 countries with increases from 102% to 556%), in comparison with admissions rises (10 countries increasing from 100% to 156%). In other words, the world film screen market is losing spectators but increasing revenues–mainly due to increased ticket prices. In the context of many large countries,such as China, the Russian Federation and India,“lacking cinema screens, the development of their cinema infrastructure could give a push to the world film market”(Miller, 2008)."

"The number of screens in Latin America grew on average by 65% in the 2000s. This percentage was led by Mexico and to a lesser extent;Brazil and Colombia (see Figure 11). This growth took place in a context of high geographic and class concentration, in addition to the high cost of tickets –in Latin America just one family outing to the family represented the equivalent of 10% of average local monthly income. Nevertheless, Latin America still remains “under screened”, including the giant Brazil, which has only around 2,500 screens fora population of almost 200 million inhabitants,representing only 1.1screens per 100,000 inhabitants. Regardless of whether one country has more or fewer screens, the geographic concentration of the screens is extremely important in all Latin American countries. In Mexico, only 7% of cities had a screen, and in Brazil, the second largest Latin American exhibition market, only 10% of cities had a theater (González, 2011). These patterns are especially acute in digital cinema through its flagship: 3D (the vast majority of Latin American digital screens are 3D). In 2007, 19 screens were digitized in Latin America. Since 2008, especially 2009, many digital screens opened in the entire region. Nevertheless, the rate of digitization in the region remains one of the lowest in the world (22% in 2011) (see Figure 12)."

"The cinema market in Latin America has faced drastic changes over the last few decades. Up until 40 years ago, national private companies dominated the Latin American film markets, especially exhibition. Through globalization, film distribution and exhibition are now mainly controlled by Hollywood studios and the multinational companies associated with them (Guback 1969, Getino, 1984-1987,Rey, 2005). In Latin America, there are fewer numbers of movie goers: the frequency of attendance in the region is on average 0.8 movies per year per person, except in Mexico (1.7), a country that has the fifth largest exhibition market of the world. Nevertheless, box office showed an increase of 127% during the 2000s, due mainly to the constant increase in cinema ticket price: prices doubled during the last decade (due primarily to the cost of 3D screening which typically is at a premium price)."

"Within Latin America, there is an important and hidden level of semi-professional, almost artisanal, production of feature films,especially in Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela. Like “Nollywood”, these films which are not released in theatres but rather circulated via street vendors or streaming on-line (mainly YouTube) are viewed by large audiences,with some titles becoming popular “hits”."

"Viewers in Latin America have access to about 9,756 screens. On average,there are 210 commercial releases per year. Depending on the country, between 5 and 130 national films are produced a year, primarily as a direct result of the national support received by the governments of the region over various decades. During the first decade of the 21st Century, Latin American countries produced 2,400 feature films (see Figure 8), with growth throughout each decade (on average 350 films were produced per year between 2005 and 2011). This is a sharp increase from the 1980s, when on average 230 films were produced annually or the 1990s with 90 films per year (Getino, 2005). Film production in Latin America increased partly as a direct result of the public policies developed to support the field (with the exceptions of Paraguay and a few Central American countries). These policies have been present in most of the subcontinent since the 1930s (mainly in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Peru). The subsequent decades saw further support in the form of subsidies, tax incentives,soft loans, prizes for quality and screen quotas (there were even state producers, state distributors and state exhibitors, mainly in Mexico from the 1940s to 1970s and in Brazil in the 1970s). In the early 1990s, most countries in the region experienced a drastic reduction in public support, affecting the national film sectors negatively. Nevertheless, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, there was a re-emergence of public policies favorable to the film sector, mainly in relation to production. The three major film-producing countries, Argentina, Brazil and Mexico,resumed their growth. During the 2000s, most Latin American countries implemented national legislation supporting the film sector. Argentina and Brazil returned to maximum production peaks with over 100 films produced annually, surpassing records set in the earlier “golden years”. Mexico also increased film production, but the country is only just reaching the number of films produced during its golden years (between 1940 and 1980), which was also about 100 annually. Other Latin American countries showed more modest increases in the number of films produced. Due to new national film policies in some of these countries, they have begun regular production of films for the first time in their history."

"The Latin American film market shows contrasting situations between countries. On the one hand, there are countries that in the last decade have more than doubled the number of screens, admissions and/or box office (i.e.Brazil, Colombia, Mexico and Peru). Brazil entered the world Top 10 list with the highest admissions of any Latin American country during the last decade, while Mexico has the fifth largest number of screens in the world. On the other hand, some countries encountered modest growth or even stagnation in the number of screens available (i.e. Argentina and Uruguay)."

"One of the reasons for the sharp increase in the number of cinema admissions in China has been the prodigious growth of its economy and the increase in the standard of living and disposable incomes of the middle class. These newly wealthy citizens can now afford to go to the cinema to enjoy both national and foreign movies. This growth has spurred the continual and rapid construction of theatres: “China is building something like 10 screens a day”, said Christopher Dodd, MPAA chairman and CEO on March 2013 (The Hollywood Reporter, 2013). And despite the tremendous increases in average ticket prices, Chinese spectators continue to fill theaters.Although the number of new multiplexes has risen steadily, China is still lacking screens (as seen in Section 3.3) in comparison to its population and market. In 2011, China had approximately 2,000 theaters and 9,286screens across the country –making it the second largest national exhibition market in the world. However, this represents only one screen per every 136,000 people. In contrast, the USA had approximately 40,000 screens in 2011,with a population of approximately 280 million, representing one screen per every 7,000 people. China will need to construct some 170,000 screens to reach the same level of screen density as in the USA."

"Over the few last decades, the rate of economic growth of the Chinese economy has been enormous compared to most,if not all,economies in developed countries. As a result, this growth has been evident in the film market, where by 2012 China became the second largest consumer of feature films in the world in terms of box office.During the same period, the USA market has faced stagnation or experienced little increase in terms of admissions. If this trend continues, China will surpass the USA as the world’s Number 1film market by 2020.The film market in China has grown four to five times faster than its GDP over the last decade (and its GDP is one of the fastest growing in the world)and the growth in the film market has been even more impressive. In fact, between 2005 and 2011, box office in China grew on average by 43% per year (50% over the 2008-2011 period), while the cinema market box office of the USA grew on average by just 2.2% annually (see Figure 5). The difference in the number of admissions is remarkable: while admissions grew on average by 15.6% annually in China between 2005 and 2011, in the USA market there was an annual average decrease of -1.4% (see Figure 6). This growth occurred despite the dramatic increase in ticket prices that occurred in China during this period. The average admission price in China multiplied 3.5 times, an increase of 253% between 2005 and 2011, whereas the average ticket price in the USA increased by only 23.8%."

"In 2007, the USA accounted for 70% of all digital screens; by 2001, the share had dropped to 46%. The greatest growth occurred in Europe. In the 2000s, the mainstream film industry (Hollywood and multinational companies) declared that digitization of screens would reduce copy fees and other related costs, opening more theaters, penetrating territories with a low level of screens, allowing national film producers and filmmakers in developing countries to increase their market share and reinforcing cultural diversity (De Luca, 2004, 2009)."

"[C]ountries that had the fewest number of screens in 2007 were almost exclusively from Africa. Nevertheless, some countrieswith fewscreensin other regions still had important markets,such as China, India and the Russian Federation. Latin America also generally has a low number of screens, but two countries stood out: Bolivia (2005) and Paraguay (2006). This is a more recent situation, because until the 1970s Latin America had many screens distributed all over its territories (Getino, 2005)."

"The difference between box office and admissions is even clearer when analysing BRIC countries (Brazil, the Russian Federation, India and China). While BRIC countries accounted for 9% to 17% of world box office, the rate for admissions was impressive, between 49% and 56%: BRIC countries accounted for one-half of global admissions (mainly, because of India) between 2006 and 2011."

"[O]ver the last several years the exhibition market in India has changed, possibly accounting for variations in the film market. The main change in the exhibition market is the multiplex (Pendakur, 2012). In India, there still is a plethora of mono screens in the southern half of the country, with an average ticket price of US$ 0.50. These screens are still the most popular for Indian moviegoers. Around 1,000 multiplexes have emerged in large Indian cities, with a ticket price of around US$3.30. These multiplexes account for most of the Indian revenues generated for Hollywood blockbusters. Nevertheless, films from USA account for no more than 7% to 10% of the Indian box office (Ernst & Young-India Film Council, 2012). Additionally, no Hollywood films are in the Indian Top 10 films."

"As Iberoamerican expert Octavio Getino said, “Never have people watched so many movies... but mainly not in theaters” (Getino, 2012)."

"Although it may appear that ticket prices in developing countries are low, when compared with the average income and the cost of living, ticket prices in these countries are relatively high compared to developed countries: one trip to the movies with friends or family can represent almost 10% of monthly income (González, 2012)."

"Other countries with important increases in their box offices overthe period 2006 to 2011 include: Belarus, Romania,Ukraine and Venezuela. Several Latin American, East European and Asian markets doubled their box office during this period. Nevertheless, the majority of these countries represent small markets and the increase in some of them is explained by high inflation rates, as is the case for Argentina,Belarus and Venezuela."

"There were 7 countries that had “very high” annual film production (more than 200 feature films) between 2005 and 2011, producing on average 3,561 films yearly and representing 57% of the world’s feature films. There were 11 countries that had a “high” level of film production (between 80 and 199 feature films per year), producing on average 1,259 feature films annually. The very high-and high-level groups together accounted for 78% of global film production on average over this time period, representing the production of 4,820 films annually. The “average” production category (between 20 and 79 feature films per year)accounted for an average annual production of 16% of the world’s films. (1,013 films on average per year). Finally, one-half of countries were classified in the “low” or “very low” levels of film production. They accounted for 6% of total average annual feature films produced."

"Analysing all films, regardless of their format of production (theatrical release or video production) provides an overview of the cinema sector worldwide. Table 7 shows that global film production has increased significantly in recent times, with total production rising from 5,735 movies in 2005 to 7,442 in 2008. Production continues to grow but at a slower pace since 2008."

"Countries which do not have the facilities and resources to produce films for theatrical release are using video format to reach their audiences. As shown in Table 6, Nigeria–with an average production of 1,000 movies per year –is the third largest producer in terms of volume. As a result of new technology and video production, the emergence of new film producers, such as Mauritius, has been possible. While the country did not produce any feature films before 2009, Mauritius increased its production from 19 to 30 films between 2010 and 2011."

"Nigeria has a very high number of audiovisual productions (see Map 1)–on average releasing 966 films per year between 2005 and 2011 –but they are semi-professional/informal productions, most of them almost artisanal with limited or no theatrical release. While 1,074 films were produced in 2010 in Nigeria, national movies sold only 117,563 tickets (26% of market share of that year), in a country with a population of about 160 million inhabitants."