by Gert Meesters

Dear comics lovers,

Why me? That cliché question kept going through my mind during the last few days, while I was preparing what to say on this occasion. The answer came with the official programme of this festival. It said 'Gert Meesters, comics journalist and critic'. Since I am the only critic who has been scheduled for this occasion, I am going to try to sketch my opinions and observations as a critic as often as possible during the rest of this talk.

There are lots of aspects of alternative comics that are worth exploring, especially because so little has been said about most representatives, about their purposes, their influence on the mainstream, the history and lots of other interesting topics. I will only be talking about one single aspect of alternative comics, and that is the heterogeneity of today's alternative comics. I will compare two different representatives of this kind of comics: the European avant-garde comic, of which we can see a whole lot here today, and the American underground.

There are a few meaningful questions to be asked about this subject. Is it useful to compare such different material as European avant-garde and American underground? Moreover: is it possible to compare European avant-garde and American underground? I will answer the first question implicitly later on in my talk. The second, about the possibility of a comparison between European avant-garde and American underground, will be answered right away.

That question about the possibility of a comparison suggests, by its nature, that a comparison will not be easy. I am sure that a contemporary transatlantic comparison cannot result in clearly divided types of alternative comics. There are a number of difficult matters which would make a strict division impossible. Try, for example, to define 'American' and 'European'. Does European mean that the author originates from a European country? Then Alan Moore would be a European. Does it mean that the author lives in Europe? Then Robert Crumb would be a representative of the European alternative scene. Or does it mean that the author has got a European publisher? Secondly, even if it were possible to define 'European' and 'American', the problem would rise that some authors by the characteristics of their work would seem to belong to the wrong category. I will come back to this last issue later. Now, I will briefly elaborate on the possibility of using 'European' and 'American' in a defining, delimiting sense.

A comparable theoretical difficulty always arises in general studies about comic books. Generally speaking, the author usually starts by giving his definition of a comic book. No definition is entirely the same, because every author considers other features essential. One author will say that the strip-element is essential, an other will affirm that prepublication should be included, and a third will claim that all comic books are commercial by their nature. As I will explain now, all these point of views are wrong.

The previous clearly boils down to a terminological issue, -in other words- to a linguistic difficulty in defining the alternative comics one wants to compare. As a matter of fact, I am a linguist during office hours. And I think that linguistics can offer a way out of this terminological struggle. The way of defining terms in the comics theory still works with a method called componential analysis, which means that the meaning of a term is split up in parts to make up a definition of all members belonging to this term. In linguistics, this kind of definition is certainly not the only one and has become rather old-fashioned.

The more proper way of defining a term like American, European, or comic book for that matter is a prototype definition. This may sound difficult, but it is not. It means that for each category of members that can be defined by a single term, you can define a hard core, the nucleus of the category. Other members may not match that definition entirely, but may still belong to that category. From your faces, I can see that it is now time for a clear example: we all know what a bird is. Let us say that a bird is an animal that has got wings and feathers, and that can fly. That's the prototype: a sparrow easily fits that description. But a penguin cannot fly. Still, it is called a bird. A New-Zealand kiwi does not even have discernible wings. Still, it is called a bird. The principle should be clear by now. Applied in a proper way, this piece of linguistic theory can be a weapon for those artists amongst you who have been told once or often that their work is no comic art. The only thing you need to say on those occasions is: "well my work may not be a prototypical comic book, but it certainly belongs to comics as an art form". You can scare anyone using science.

I realise that I have dwelled a rather long time on this definition matter, but I reckon that this elaboration has been justified, because it has got more importance than just for my argument. It certainly presents a way out for the terminological matter that had to be resolved to make a continuation of my talk possible: the possibility or impossibility of discerning American and European style alternative comics. Prototype semantics has liberated us from the need to draw a strict dividing line between America and Europe. Note that I am using the geographic terms as stylistic terms with a slight geographic element now. Defining a prototype will suffice for the sake of this argument. Of course, one should realise that we are only talking about the hard core then. To make sure that everything is seen in the right perspective, I will add a counterexample every now and then. Mind, these counterexamples do not mean that the suggested theory is wrong, but only make clear that reality is not so simple and that a prototype should not become a caricature.

Now, let us try and define the prototypes on both sides of the ocean. My suggestion is that we take Fantagraphics underground material as the prototype for the American alternative comic book, whereas the work of Frigo could be a prototype for the European alternative comic book. If we assume that these two examples are the two extreme ends of a cline, we can go a long way. Let me briefly define both prototypes. America: a black and white comic book in a Crumb-like graphic style. Subject: one or another politically incorrect or shocking theme, usually autobiography. Used to be sold in head shops and still shows relics from hippie- and other subcultures. Europe: a black and white comic book, heavily experimenting with form, searching for new and other ways to combine graphics and narrative. Narration is seldom straightforward, the classic narrative is stripped to the bone and rebuilt, if told at all.

Starting from these prototypes, one can easily discern meaningful differences between America and Europe. Firstly, the role of aesthetics is much more restricted in America than in Europe. The European variant pretends to be art, the American seldom does. A European alternative comic looks like the graphic style has been pondered upon and has been the result of sweat and hard labour. In America, simple Crumb-imitation or no graphic style at all (I am referring to Roberta Gregory's books) is very usual. It is therefore normal that black and white comics in Europe are mostly motivated by economic and artistic reasons; in America they are almost entirely economically motivated. Of course this distinction of 'beauty' and 'ugliness' is not true for every alternative comic artist. Americans like Chris Ware and Jaime Hernandez pay a lot of attention to the aesthetic pleasure their work can give. On the other hand, in his Lapinot-stories European Lewis Trondheim is not really concerned about the beauty of the form.

Secondly, the European variant borrows from other art forms, whereas American alternative comics mostly borrow from their predecessors in mainstream and underground, and sometimes from the movies. Europe seems to be more than just coincidentally interested in painting and literature. Postmodernism sometimes hits you in the face while looking at a modern European artist's work. In 'Lapinot et les carottes de Patagonie', the surrealistic écriture automatique is given a new meaning for the comic book. In Denis Deprez' work, the wood carving of Frans Masereel can be recognised. Aristophane has used elements from classical mythology and from Dante's Divina Comedia, to tell a story which is modern and philosophical in his 'Contes démoniaques'.

A third difference I would like to point out, may be the most important one. I have the impression that America likes experimenting with the contents and Europe with the medium, comics as an art form itself. Americans love putting shocking or unusual elements in a more or less classic storyline, preferably autobiographical, so that by using the expressionist style that got its fame from Crumb, comics become the personal medium by excellence. Comics as a way to educate the middle class and to entertain the young at heart. Europe is, once again, very different. Here, the medium itself is at stake. Are balloons necessary? How much information does the reader need to understand what is going on (see Dominique Goblet)? Is it necessary that the consecutive images are separated (see Anna Sommer)? Of course, also this radical difference needs softening. Autobiography has its European lovers: Killoffer, Neaud, Bart Schoofs and others. The Dutch artists from Zone 5300 may in this respect be more American than European. And if Chris Ware had not reinvented some aspects of comic art, he would not have been in this exposition.(1)

Are there any similarities left? Or are we talking about totally different artistic expressions? I do not think so. The most important similarity is the alternative, off-mainstream character. Both American underground and European avant-garde feel that mainstream comics are too limited, that artistic liberty is not possible in mainstream comics. In that respect the difference mentioned above about experimenting with contents and form is not so strange. In Europe, mainstream series as Aire Libre take up such a lot of controversial issues, that the alternative comic cannot get a lot out of telling things untold. The next logical step is the looking at how a story is told and what can be changed. This off-mainstream character may be the reason why a transatlantic jump in alternative comics seems, all things considered, to be easier than importing a mainstream comic. I am referring to the appearance of Julie Doucet and Jim Woodring in European magazines and of European artists in Raw or Drawn and Quarterly. Superman may sell some thousand issues in continental Europe, but has never been the hit it used to be in the States. Off-mainstream seems to be less culture-specific than mainstream.

Now, here comes the critic in me. He has been locked up since the beginning of this speech, in favour of the theoretic. Let me briefly underline the relevance of experiments. I have been a comics lover since the time the alphabet was a secret to me; I have been a critic for almost two years. Let me assure you: after some time every comic is alike. On such occasions, I am glad that I can read 'Le cheval sans tête' or other alternative, European or American, work. If an art form stops evolving, it is dead. If all comics were like Alix, I would not read comics any more. And do not let this be misunderstood: I am not a critic who only likes experimental work. I dare admit that a simple series like La Vache can render all my enthusiasm for the art form.

But the role of the experiment is not to be underestimated. It should force mainstream to evolve, as the French magazines did at the end of the sixties. One of the reasons of the decline of the comics industry in the States, in my opinion, is the lack of experiment, the stubborn refusal to publish refreshingly new comics for women, for example. It is therefore not to be considered high treason that people like David B and Trondheim are published at Dargaud's. On the contrary, as long as the artist himself can decide on the limitations he wants to impose on his work, it is necessary that the big publishers take over some elements of the avant-garde. Counterculture as a sociological phenomenon makes culture evolve.

That is why I consider it a pleasure to have spoken on the occasion of this important event. Autarcic Comix shows that counterculture and experiment are alive and kicking butts. Therefore, to all artists who are a part of these wonderful groups and movements, keep showing people that comic art is more than the last Blake and Mortimer. Show them that comics are a living art form.

Thank you.

(1) After the talk, mister Thierry Groensteen kindly pointed out that one of the reasons for the three differences I mention, could be that most American underground artists are autodidacts, while European avant-garde artists often have attended art schools. This seems to be true for the majority, but there are also a lot of American underground artists who have attended art schools.