BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Comic Books >

Auteur Theory in Comics. Discussion.

  
 
Crestmere
06:45 / 22.03.06
Do you think that auteur theory can apply to comics?

Should it only apply when the writer and artist are the same person?

Is there a sort of "dual auteur" or "creator" theory for creators that have their own distinct voices and styles but who might not necessarily qualify under the label of auteur?

Or should the collaboration, play and tension between writer and artist, story and art, be enough to doom this from the beginning? Could it stand up to the same kinds of criticisms that have been levelled at the auteur theory in film?

What sort of an intellectual and theoretical basis should be applied to theories of authorship in comics? Independant comics have long been based on the voices of the creators and, even at Marvel and DC, there has been an increasing emaphsis on auctorial presence, particularly that of writers.
 
 
Jack Denfeld
07:17 / 22.03.06
I don't know what auteur theory is.
 
 
Crestmere
07:39 / 22.03.06
Yeah, probably not the best idea not to include some definition. Sorry.

Essentially, it started after World War II in France. SInce they were occupied during the war, they got a huge glut of American movies at once. And they (it was msotly university students, many of whom became either film critics, directors, or, in some cases, both) started to see similarities in style between certain directors. ANd their idea was that the director was the "author" of the film and it represented his (and it was mostly male directors at the time) vision. A couple of the people they cited a lot were John Ford and Howard Hawks.

Basic Wikipedia overview. It hits on all the big points, how it came about and the later criticisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur_theory
 
 
Jack Denfeld
07:44 / 22.03.06
The auteur theory is the theory that a film (or a body of work) by a director (or, rarely, a producer) reflects the personal vision and preoccupations of that director, as if he or she were the work's primary "author" (auteur).
I still don't understand. Wouldn't a writer's work almost always reflect their personal vision and preoccupations?

What are your thoughts on this topic? Maybe I'll understand more after you give your own opinion.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
09:03 / 22.03.06
Perhaps one problem with saying "does the auteur theory apply to comics" is that the auteur theory involved borrowing the literary model of authorship and applying it to film, thus elevating cinema from commercial product to art (put very simply) -- but the comic book is actually far closer to the novel, and that model of writer-as-author, than the film is.

So as Jack Denfield points out, it seems kind of obvious in comics that a writer expresses his or her concerns and vision through each work, whereas for a director to do the same was more of an original and contentious idea.

However, the issue about whether comics (like film) as a collaborative medium can be considered in the same way as novels, which have one obvious author, is still worth discussing.

Comics are less collaborative than cinema, though, usually: a comic usually involves writer, often a different artist, sometimes a letterer worthy of credit, sometimes a colorist who deserves special mention. Any major film involves a greater number of significant collaborators.
 
 
Mario
09:28 / 22.03.06
I think the key question may be "How crucial is the artist's role in the creative vision of a comic?" And that's a question with more than one answer, especially given the continuum of styles involved in comicbook-scripting (Full-script to "Marvel style")

I'd say that the more detailed a script, the less likely that the artist[s] will have a critical role as part of the auteur gestalt. There are exceptions, however, since some full-script writers are known to tailor their scripts to an artist's strengths.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
10:12 / 22.03.06
Alan Moore is famous for writing a page of description for a panel of art, but artists like Gibbons and to a lesser extent Lloyd, Sienkiewicz, Totleben are still considered integral to the overall whole that is Watchmen, V, Big Numbers and Swamp Thing.
 
 
Mario
10:46 / 22.03.06
Yeah, Alan was one of the writers I was thinking about.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
11:43 / 22.03.06
Well, I think there's no question that Moore and Morrison, for instance, continually return to the same themes, storytelling devices, character types and so on, in a great deal of their work. One interesting debate you could borrow from film auteur theory is the extent to which they do that while working within "the system", ie. for a big corporation producing popular product (equivalent to classical Hollywood film studio) that supposedly limits their creative stretch.
 
 
sleazenation
12:11 / 22.03.06
Interestingly enough though, both Moore and Morrison have drawn and written their own comics and even Gaiman, the more writerly of comics writers, has admitted to drawing his comic scripts out occasionally so he can get a rough idea what they will look like...
 
 
sleazenation
12:16 / 22.03.06
Interesting question Miss Wonderstarr - one that will remain largely theoretical for Morrison it would seem since he has shown little interest in working outside of the main publishers...

Moore is a different kettle of fish and does seem to adapt his voice/format depending on the market/publisher... I sincerely doubt V for Vendetta would have been commissioned by DC.
 
 
Mario
12:40 / 22.03.06
I once theorized that the nature of a comics writer changes depending on his scripting method. When he works full-script, he's basically the director, dictating every frame according to his vision. The artist basically becomes the cinematographer (at best) or cameraman (at worst).

But if he works closer to the plot-first style, he then becomes more of a screenwriter, and the artist assumes more of the directorial role. And if he only scripts over another's plots, the gap is even wider.

It seems to me, however, that there are very few truly great comics where the artist is critical to the work, but the writer is not. The only examples I can think of are (perhaps) the early Lee-Kirby collaborations, and even then, theories differ as to the extent of Stan's influence.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
16:14 / 22.03.06
Interesting question Miss Wonderstarr - one that will remain largely theoretical for Morrison it would seem since he has shown little interest in working outside of the main publishers...


Yes, but he seems to have an enormous amount of freedom within that framework. With Invisibles, the Filth and Seven Soldiers, he seems pretty much to have free rein and on the former two titles, to come as close as we've seen to tapping his "visions" (literally, his dreams, sickness hallucinations and magic) directly.

It might be interesting to compare those titles with something earlier where he carried less industry clout, like Kid Eternity (early Vertigo), Zenith (2000AD), Bible John (Revolver). I'd suggest that those three also have clear trace elements of the "pure" Morrison we see in Invisibles. Maybe Bible John isn't a great example as it was an esoteric strip within a self-consciously experimental comic anyway. Try New Adventures of Hitler or Dare as other case studies perhaps.

With Moore, you can obviously see storytelling techniques developing within V and Swamp Thing (captions at counterpoint to the image, silent cinematic panels, purple prose, the slow "crane shot" pulling back from gutter to rooftop) that reached their richest expression in Watchmen and then pollinated the whole superhero genre.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
16:18 / 22.03.06
It seems to me, however, that there are very few truly great comics where the artist is critical to the work, but the writer is not. The only examples I can think of are (perhaps) the early Lee-Kirby collaborations, and even then, theories differ as to the extent of Stan's influence.

Elektra: Assassin is a possible example where Sienkiewicz's incredibly bold and inventive work started to dominate and (I think I heard) guide Miller's writing -- though Miller is certainly not sub-par or muffling his voice in this book, it's more the artist's showcase.
 
 
Yotsuba & Benjamin!
17:15 / 22.03.06
I'm more confused about how the fact that a few talented writers learn to or can already draw well and thus do everything themselves factors into the discussion. Isn't that the real comics auteur? Everything else, I feel, is a pretty equal collabo. 100 Bullets wouldn't have any of its mise en scene without Risso's riffing in the fore and background (yes, apparently like 85% of all that stuff is all Risso.)
 
 
Andrew Hickey
17:58 / 22.03.06
I think it's pretty obvious that the 'author' of a comic can be more than just the writer. One could make a very strong case that Julie Schwartz or Mort Weisinger were the authors of the comics they edited, Kirby comics are always Kirby comics no matter who the credited writer, but with someone like Moore, Gaiman or Morrison, the comic always has their storytelling, and their personal style, no matter what artist or editor they're working with. Keith Giffen comics always read like Giffen comics too, even when he's just the breakdown artist and plotter - Lobo and JLI are recognisably the work of the same person, despite having different scripters and artists.
While collaborative, I *do* think there is usually one person whose vision drives a comic, but I don't think it's necessarily the writer (though in the ones I read, that's usually the case).
 
 
miss wonderstarr
18:43 / 22.03.06
I'm more confused about how the fact that a few talented writers learn to or can already draw well and thus do everything themselves factors into the discussion. Isn't that the real comics auteur? Everything else, I feel, is a pretty equal collabo.

Yes, but though in cinema the only true and unquestionable auteur would be someone who wrote, lit, shot, directed, produced and probably acted and composed too (the nearest big and recent example might be Shane Carruth from Primer, though surely it happens all the time in lower-budget filmmaking) that doesn't stop someone saying Orson Welles is an auteur despite the fact that Greg Toland gave Citzen Kane its distinctive look, or that John Ford is an auteur despite the argument that John Wayne makes an immense contribution to The Searchers just through his star presence.

My point is that though film is usually at least as collaborative as comics, traditionally people have still felt they can pick out the director as "author".

If you did the equivalent in comics, you would relegate Risso to the ranks of cinematographer or actor, ie. far less familiar and less celebrated as a contributing "author".



with someone like Moore, Gaiman or Morrison, the comic always has their storytelling, and their personal style, no matter what artist or editor they're working with.

Though comic writers do change their style to fit an individual artist. Pat Mills, supposedly, is a good example (that is, I've heard it said though I'm not expert on his work -- example might be Nemesis drawn by John Hicklenton, as opposed to Purity's Story drawn by David Leach.)

Apologies if I've made any slips with names in the above post as it is all from memory, and I'm rushing things before The Apprentice starts!
 
 
Yotsuba & Benjamin!
18:47 / 22.03.06
If you did the equivalent in comics, you would relegate Risso to the ranks of cinematographer or actor, ie. far less familiar and less celebrated as a contributing "author".

Which is why I can't really get my head around this whole thing, as comic book artists with their own style are never creatively relegated the way, say a Darius Khonji is on a Fincher film versus a Woody Allen film.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
21:27 / 22.03.06
OK, well.


Do you think that auteur theory can apply to comics?

Should it only apply when the writer and artist are the same person?

I think it would involve more shoehorning, prising and pruning to make comics creation fit the "auteur" mould familiar from cinema, because the precedent in comics is for artist and writer to hold more or less equal status, whereas in cinema we're now used to the director being foregrounded as author.

However, I think we can consider comic book writers in the same way as film auteurs are discussed, in terms of a characteristic set of devices, concerns and techniques.

We could probably also have a shot at doing it with artists.


Is there a sort of "dual auteur" or "creator" theory for creators that have their own distinct voices and styles but who might not necessarily qualify under the label of auteur?

Is this the distinction into ranks, or into auteurs vs metteurs-en-scene? I would say it could work -- Moore, Morrison and Gaiman have a more distinct style and vision than Mills, Milligan and Wagner, I'd suggest. John Smith, Garth Ennis, Warren Ellis, Jeph Loeb, Denny O'Neill have a recognisable "voice" and set of interests, I think, but less obviously in each case than the first three I mentioned.

I'd say Wagner is an example of a "studio" man, a "craftsman", someone who always does a competent, creditable job and fills what's needed of him solidly, but doesn't transcend the requirements or express a certain vision that he keeps returning to. Wagner's Dredd is very different from Morrison's Zenith, I'd suggest, in this respect. Morrison was really pushing what 2000AD could do, and was working on themes he keeps coming back to in subsequent work. Wagner was, I believe, doing something he enjoys and does well, but not really trying to get anything that personally fascinates and drives him out into the open, or to stretch the boundaries of the genre.


Or should the collaboration, play and tension between writer and artist, story and art, be enough to doom this from the beginning? Could it stand up to the same kinds of criticisms that have been levelled at the auteur theory in film?

I don't think it can stand up to any criticism of the concept of writer-as-sole-auteur. But I think you can valuably consider one or more of the comic book collaborators individually as an auteur.
 
 
grant
00:57 / 23.03.06
Don't editors have story control? I mean, in most cases, aren't writers just connecting the dots?
 
 
eddie thirteen
01:26 / 23.03.06
The editor only ever seems to be nodded to as the auteur on comics about rape and decapitation that no one wants to take credit for (but for which everyone is evidently willing to accept payment).
 
 
Crestmere
09:02 / 23.03.06
I started this because I think that its important that we start some theoretical discourse on the nature of authorship in comics. And I think that auteurism is probably the most pervasive theory of authorship right now so it was a good starting point.

I'm glad that there has been a response like this about this issue because I think that comics have a unique authorship situation, one that is substantially different enough from film, novels or theatre that it warrants a unique discussion.

Foucault said that the appearance of an author as something important was a status symbol. The critics in Cahiers du Cinema created the auteur theory. Pauline Kael slammed the auteur theory in the 60s and there's been later criticism of it but its still been influential. And the nature of the relationship between the author, the narrator and the reader has been something that has changed greatly. Look at a book like Vanity Fair where the author writes mostly in a third person omniscient voice but he takes time every now and then to address readers (even to the point of doing it by name), a technique that would be almost campy now.



Anyway, to the relevant points other people brought up.

One general thing, I am not a fan of the term "artist" to refer only to the penciller or painter on the work because writers, inkers, colourists and letterers (and editors too) are artists as well. But the term "artist" will be used unless otherwise specified to refer to the person or team of people that do the visuals, usually the penciller. The term "writer" will be used to mean the guy that is in charge of scripting, plotting, dialogue, etc. The term "authorship" is more the final responsibility of who the finished product as a creative work actually belongs to (as opposed to the older definition of "author" as being about the same as "writer" as a novel would say). When "writer" and "artist" are used separately, it will generally be used to refer to situations where they are different people.


miss wonderstarr, I totally agree with you that the auteur theory has a number of very significant flaws, many of which came from questionable assumptions made by the people who initially created it (like not having a full understanding of just how little control a lot of the directors had and totally disregarded the contributions of screenwriters that had later been shown to have been fairly significant) and I'm not sure that it applies as its really understood to comics at all outside a few very rare exceptions (I can think of R. Crumb for one).

To really be a comic auteur, one would have to be in control of both the writing and the art (at the very least pencils, I'll be liberal in allowing room for someone else to do colouring or lettering even though, ultimately, the comic auteur should contorl it) but I can't think of a lot of people who might be that much in control of the work that don't both write and draw. I think Alan Moore could be the only exception on this one (or at least the only one I can think of in terms of a guy that has that level of control).

At the same time, comics are a collaborative medium, every bit as much as film (though, like you said, with fewer people) and I think from there, one of the magic things in comics comes about. There's a tension, disconnect, play, pick a term, between the story and the art. As we see the art, we get the story as the artist interpreted it from the script. And from that interaction, we get the dynamite that really fuels comic storytelling and can make it great or the thing that can make it flop, I can think of a couple prime examples (I tried to think of fairly well known things) of this tension in terms of art and story, for an example of how it can work well look at Warren Ellis and Humberto Ramos on DV8, you had incredibly dark stories with cartoony artwork but the cartoony artwork managed to make some of the things that characters that were, frankly, unlikeable a bit less shocking and gave some of it charm, or you could cite Seaguy here, the artwork and the presentation of the story contrasts a story that is incredibly dark. For an example of how this can feel, check out Salvador Larrocca and Peter Milligan on Golgotha, the mood is all over the place and the art can't even come close to capturing the mood or the emotion. Had the story had a different artist (I like to think Leonardo Manco or Don Kramer but that's just me), I don't think I'd be mentioning it on this list.,

And in the backdrop of this, we have a medium where there have always been star creators, probably going back to at least Stan Lee (possibly earlier). But we are seeing the star creators starting to take the forefront and sell books based on their voice (this is particularly true of writers right now) rather then the characters. In this age, I think its important to have some theoretical grounding of authorship.

While I don't think that 'auteur' is the best word, maybe a 'creator' theory or 'polyauteurism' would be more appropriate, with the unique voice on the work coming from the interaction of writer and artist (assuming that they are two separate people of course), story and art. Even though comics at this point almost always rely on the writer, he is not the sole person responsible for the "authorship" of the comic. The only way that this wouldn't be possible would be if there was a single writer/artist whose art perfectly matches his story in a way that no tension or play could come about, honestly, kind of an impossible scenario.

So I'm honestly not really sure that the authorship theory from film (the auteur theory applies) nor does the authorship theories from prose but some kind of authorship theory that emphasizes the creator's roles on the book is absolutely necessary, a new one.

Another important point was made by Mario.

How important is the contribution of the artist?

There are definatley projects where the writer is the driving force (and I think a lot of comics today are like that) BUT the story as its presented it generally filtered through the artist and there is often a certain degree of tailoring the presentation of the story to fit the particular skills of that artist. So could this be seen as power on the writers side or the importance of the artist as both a collaborator and an interpretor, could it be both? Again, a situation unique to comics that needs to be addressed.

But, as comics stand today, even the biggest superstar artists share the headline with writers. The biggest writers don't headline with artists to the same degree. For Tomorrow? It was Jim Lee drawing Superman but it was also Jim Lee and Brian Azzarello on Superman, we knew who the main attraction was but the other guy could not be forgotten. Seven Soldiers? Grant Morrison's visionary takes with some of the best artists in comics, again a clear sense of who the main attraction is.

I'm ending this post and the next one will address the posts from miss wonderstar starting "well, I think there's no question..." on.
 
 
Mario
10:46 / 23.03.06
There have been (and are) editor-driven comics, but in those cases, it's not so much that there isn't a single auteur, as said auteur isn't who you think he is. In these cases, the editor becomes the director, with the scripter acting as "2nd unit", handling the less-relevant scenes.
 
 
Sniv
12:26 / 23.03.06
From what I've read, I'd hazard that Infinite Crisis is a prime example of editor-authorship. It seems that Dan DiDio and co are calling the shots for almost all of the corssover, and the directions for most of the One Year Later books.

I suppost though that crossovers are a law unto themselves when it comes to authorship of the whole story, but it's the editiors that see the whole thing through. I'd say they would probably claim authorship and/or have a major role in saying what goes on each book. I'd certainly agree than on projects like these, the editors are playing a bit at being David O. Selznik or Joel Silver (ewwww) - not necessarily writing/directing/shooting but still having the majority of the responsibility and control over the project and where it's headed. The 'creators' are only hired guns, after all.

I would also suggest that the comics industry was a lot more like this in the golden and silver ages than it is today, perhaps moving along with the general trends in cinema? I remember reading in my Batman history book that half the time, Kane and Robinson weren't even the creators working on the comic - these jobs were really given to studio assistants with increasing frequency in the early days of DC. Alothough Kane still gets the credit, he didn't actually draw most of his credited run on Batman. Could you imagine this happening today?

Also, you mention Crumb - do you think that auteurism is something that came to aminstream comics from the underground, or vice-versa? Somebody working in the indies could have more reasons to be seen as an 'auteur', in that they have to produce their comic single-handedly out of necessity rather than choice. Actually, thinking further, I think the indies are one of the only places where auteurs could properly thrive in today's industry (Morrison excepted) - without the strict editorial controls the big two must exercise, with limitations of the use of characters and an adherance to continuity possibly being barriers to complete control on behalf of the writer/artist.

I'm at work at the mo, so don't have the time I'd like to put into this right now, but I'll try and come back to this a bit later.
 
 
Mario
13:54 / 23.03.06
Alothough Kane still gets the credit, he didn't actually draw most of his credited run on Batman. Could you imagine this happening today?

Happens in manga all the time.
 
 
Sniv
14:36 / 23.03.06
Does it? I'm not too familiar with manga - how does this happen, and do the readers know/care?
 
 
Mario
14:52 / 23.03.06
Basically, the primary "mangaka" (i.e. artist) has a stable of assistants, who do things like backgrounds and the like. It's something like an internship. Everyone knows about it, and I've never heard indications that they mind.

Indeed, I suspect that some Japanese fans consider that a dream job. Many presently big names started out as assistants to older artists.
 
 
Crestmere
07:41 / 25.03.06
Editors also have an influence. On some its more then others.


So really the authorship is a mix of:

Writer(s)
Artist(s)
Editor(s)
 
 
sleazenation
08:29 / 25.03.06
As with all things I guess it also comes down to the shifting sands of the method of production... since not all comics actually have all three of those categories involved...
 
 
Yotsuba & Benjamin!
13:49 / 25.03.06
From what I've read, I'd hazard that Infinite Crisis is a prime example of editor-authorship. It seems that Dan DiDio and co are calling the shots for almost all of the corssover, and the directions for most of the One Year Later books.

However, the "and co" you cite are four prominent writers who are writing several of the books involved.
 
 
Crestmere
04:59 / 26.03.06
Sleaze--It is contingent on those being there.

There are books where the writer, editor and artist could in fact be the same person. Or books where the writer and artist could be the same person. I can't think of a lot of books where the writer and editor were the same person but I can think of a few examples. I can't think of any where the artist and editor were the same person though but I suppose this could be possible.

But the book could very well be written by the letterer and colourist.

Really, I think the main point to take away here is that the authorship in comics is fluid.

And on various comics you'll get things in various degrees.
 
 
This Sunday
06:10 / 26.03.06
The classical 'Auteur Theory' as extrapolated out of that cinematic cashiers journal, is more useful as a tool during production than post, it would seem. If one can use it to keep other hands from dipping in and fucking with their stew, good on them, but when people start copping that work X doesn't suck because - and only because - it was handled with someone with a great track record, and that it is therefore superior to work Y by someone who otherwise never established a solid selection of works sharing any identifiable unity? Better a tool that can be tossed about by, for example, Alan Moore, meaning 'You don't rewrite Alan Moore, idiot!' and thus getting the same effect as, oh, bearded snakegod of death maneuvers, without the magickal assault efforts.
When it can be flung about to defend proclaimations of 'Monkey vs Robot' being inherently inferior to the worst work(s) of Mark Millar or the Verotika line... Nobody'd actually do that, would they? Not here, I'd hope, though that has, frequently, been the primary use of the Auteur Myth.
 
 
miss wonderstarr
07:48 / 26.03.06
I think it's useful not as a device for defending some works as "better" because they're created by someone who's established as having a consistent and interesting "oeuvre" that expresses their personal concerns -- but as a way of exploring the themes and devices such an individual works through during their career.
 
  
Add Your Reply