Talking Head Syndrome

”Heaven, Heaven is a place, A place where nothing, nothing ever happens.” - David Byrne/Jerry Harrison

Here's an example of a frequent criticism that I take issue with many contemporary syndicated cartoons. These are from few random, recent issues of our hometown newspaper's cartoon page (note that the Sunday edition is four pages). On one day, 9 outta 19 of the total cartoon features utilized a repeated image in at least two if not all of the strip's panels. On two separate days the majority (12 outta 19/13 outta 19) of the strips used the cookie-cutter/copy-paste technique for rendering identical scenarios and/or character(s) were depicted in the same way.  Now to be sure, the inexorable evolution of dwindling real-estate that the creators have to deal with does not lend itself to making panels of any detail much less compositional elements that would enhance the depth, or even have better rendered drawings. On the other hand, as I just re-learned about some basics in creating a single-panel/gag cartoon, is the maxim "don't be boring." Meaning, don't waste the reader's time. And in my opinion, there is nothing more boring than a head shot, followed by a head shot followed by another, yep, you guessed it, a talking head. As cartoonists we are endowed with the powers to draw any composition from any angle, from any point of view, as we have an unlimited budget to make impossible shots. Bill Watterson ("Calvin and Hobbes") + "Rose is Rose" by Brady/Wimmer are both outstanding examples of how some a few artists can successfully work within the limitations of the medium. By virtue of default, single panels tend to be much more compositionally composed than strips, presumably on account of having to tell the story and establish the scene all within one single frame. Same difference between photography versus film. And to be sure, there are examples aplenty within my own portfolio, and it's a recurring concern while tug-of-warring with myself over how much time to invest in each panel - more on that topic soon! In the meantime, what with AI advancement, any lackluster rendering will sooner than later lose has lost out to a generative algorithm that will be indistinguishable from the originating human-drawn source.

*Updating with a couple more sample spreads from the local newspaper's weekly comics section, pretty much clustered around the week of June 24/25/26/27. The ratio is the same, if not a bit worse. Also excerpting a prescient observation from the above-mentioned Bill Watterson from a legendary commencement speech he gave in 1989.

"Amazingly, much of the best cartoon work was done early on in the medium's history. The early cartoonists, with no path before them, produced work of such sophistication, wit, and beauty that it increasingly seems to me that cartoon evolution is working backward. Comic strips are moving toward a primordial goo rather than away from it.As a cartoonist, it's a bit humiliating to read work that was done over 50 years ago and find it more imaginative than what any of us are doing now. We've lost many of the most precious qualities of comics. Most readers today have never seen the best comics of the past, so they don't even know what they're missing. Not only can comics be more than we're getting today. but the comics already have been more than we're getting today. The reader is being gypped and he doesn't even know it.

            Consider only the most successful strips in the papers today. Why are so many of them poorly drawn? Why do so many offer only the simplest interchangeable gags and puns? Why are some strips written by committees and drawn by assistants? Why are some strips still stumbling around decades after their original creators have retired or died? Why are some strips little more than advertisements for dolls and greeting cards? Why do so many of the comics look the same?"