From “Dotter of Her Father’s Eyes” – Mary & Bryan Talbot (2012)
It’s been a good weekend for graphic novels – of keen interest to me because of my own recent work in the genre. But the rise and rise of the graphic novel has interesting implications for aspects of fine art.
Two excellent graphic novels – Days of the Bagnold Summer, by Joff Winterhart; and Dotter of Her Father’s Eyes, by Bryan and Mary Talbot – have been shortlisted for the Costa Book Awards. It’s the most recent high-profile example of the genre demonstrating the sophistication of its literary credentials. Mary Talbot’s memoir is an uncompromising account of her difficult childhood as the daughter of a literary scholar; Joff Winterhart’s book is the touching story of a divorced woman and her 15-year old son over the course of a long, difficult summer. In both cases, these are complex stories which only the syncretic medium of the graphic novel – with its cross-over of image and text – can really tell effectively.
We’re used to this sort of cross-over in the fine arts. Contemporary art has successfully mixed together painting and sculpture, installation and video, sound, light and performance into works that defy easy categorisation – and a dedicated body of practice has moved this idea of the “mixed media” work from the fringes of fine art practice to the centre. And just as with the graphic novel, we know that there are some fine art works that just wouldn’t work as painting, sculpture, installation, video, sound, light or performance pieces on their own.
It’s an exciting time to be working with graphic novels. Recent experiments in narrative structuring such as hypertextuality, intertextuality, multiplatform storytelling and other forms of “telematic” or transmedia are pushing boundaries in fascinating ways. This hybrid, explorative “mixed media literature” has lots to learn from the experience of the fine arts in blending together different forms of expression – and, perhaps, a lot to teach in return.
Inside Out Art Group 
I guess I’m doing a much simpler mix – but still one that doesn’t fit publishers’ and booksellers’ pre-existing categories. I’m making an ebook that’s essentially a celebration of my garden, half and half text and photographs: because I love photography and writing equally, and need both to tell my story.
While this is not at all a revolutionary form, the market would have it that you can either do a text-only garden writing book, or a heavily illustrated how-to manual, usually fronted by a TV gardener. So it’s only due to the possibilities of ebooks and the internet that my project is happening.
Exciting times! And I’m tempted by the new cameras that would let me include bits of video in my ebook, so that a still of a meadow patch could start moving in the wind . . .
Video in ebooks? That’s a new one on me – but what an exciting development! Sounds like the moving pictures in the Harry Potter books: life imitating art?
And the thing about this kind of publishing project, too, is that because you’re reaching an audience that’s already digitally literate, you can easily move over into other digital areas like blogs, Facebook groups, etc. The business model here is that these iterations of your project help build, maintain and cultivate a readership for this publishing project – and any future ones. It’s the idea of building a little community, if you like.
Look forward to seeing the book – either in-progress or when it’s finished!
As an ex student of “Creative Lens Media”-I am moving into and between other areas/schools/disciplines ; I am trying not to be pigeonholed and simply thinking of myself as “Creative”.
I only see the artificial divisions (especially within an academic environment) as restricting-
do you agree?
Definitely. In fact, there seems to be a growing movement to make all sorts of inter-disciplinary connections between practices that have “traditionally” been seen as polar opposites – art and science being a classic example. And what’s more, an increasing number of these inter-disciplinary crossovers are producing work that genuinely benefits non-specialist perceptions of those practices.
I read this fascinating review of Lucy Prebble’s play “The Effect” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2012/nov/24/science-art-two-cultures) which makes a big point about how much art and science are intertwined. And yesterday on Brian Cox’s programme on Radio 4 there was some discussion about how the explorative nature of art and the explorative nature of science are in some ways parallel.
Neil Phillips (Supermarket, 366 Teeshirts, People’s Vinyl Collective) describes himself in his press releases as an “Oswestry Creative”, which is a description I really like. After all, as you point out, Carmel, how many of us are really all that well-defined by one particular pigeon hole?
Artist? Archaeologist? Illustrator? Comics author? Blogger? Tattooist? Academic?
I’m not sure any of these terms on its own really describes me or my work very well. And, as you point out, such narrow single-term descriptions are, indeed, restricting. Could I even be an illustrator without also being an archaeologist? Or a tattooist without being an academic? I don’t think so.
Perhaps, further to some of the things we were talking about yesterday, we should think of ourselves more in “transmedia” descriptions – ie: you have to know me as an artist & archaeologist & illustrator & comics author & blogger & tattooist & academic in order to understand my work fully. I suspect we’re all a bit like that – or are there people who happily and effectively work under one descriptive banner? I’m thinking of the comments Megan Piper made about the quality of “sustained practice” in older artists.