CCT300+Lab3


 * Lab 3**

I disagree with McLuhan when he defines comics as an extension of photographic media. McLuhan’s concept of media refers to any technology and its ability to mediate our communication. Photography and comics mediate our communication in completely different ways. Photography is generally delivered in the form of a single image, while comics are delivered in the form of multiple juxtaposed images in deliberate sequence. These two forms of communication are fundamentally different. As a result, photography cannot be delivered or received the same way as comics. For this reason, it is inappropriate to define comics as an extension of photographic media.

Comics is its own medium. To be considered an extension of photography, comics would have to be of the same media, while offering something in addition to it. However, this is not the case. If we define comics as “juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence, intended to convey information and/or to produce an aesthetic response in the viewer.” it can be observed that the history of comics far predates that of photography. Egyptian paintings, temple art, stained glass, and other ancient tapestries and manuscripts can all be considered comics under this definition.

McLuhan also discusses the idea of “hot” and “cool” media. “Hot” media refers to media forms that emphasize a single sense to capture the attention of the user and deliver meaning. “Cool” media refers to media forms that require more active participation from the user in order to create meaning. When categorized, photography is considered more of a “hot” medium, while comics is considered more of a “cool” medium. This distinction further reinforces the idea that photography and comics are separate media and that comics is not an extension of photography.

Kyle Martin Manoza