We spent a lot of time discussing Sacco's choice of form in class. It left me wondering about how another form may have looked. I think his most comparable alternative would have been a photo essay. He could balance words and images in the same way that he did with comics, coupling his own experiences with his interviews and journalistic "file photos" of the tragedies in Gorazde and the surrounding region.
This would certainly deal with the issues of "The Real Truth," as we also discussed. Photos have a reputation of being more accurate, more representative of the "facts." However, they lack many of the benefits of drawings, especially those as intricate and evocative as Sacco's. A drawing--though it may not be as "accurate" as a photograph--is able to integrate the feelings and experiences of an event in a way that photographs can rarely reach. The exaggerated features of Sacco's friends and acquaintances may not be photorealistic, but they emphasize the horror of what they've seen, the hardships they've survived, and the overall intensity of emotion they have to live with. Using comics to tell their stories is like the fairly contemporary split between journalism and creative nonfiction. We can't always trust our memories, but I think that how we remember something speaks to the event and its impact more than a series of largely impersonal photos.
This brings up another important difference between a photo essay and what we have here. I think it's important to note the symbolism of a photo being taken, the camera a physical barrier between the photographer and the subject. Sacco spoke to the awkwardness of sketching or taking notes during some interviews, and how instead, he would often rush to a private space and scribble everything down afterward. Imagine if he was reliant on a camera, and was forced to pull one out with every interview--I very much doubt that the (mostly) trusting relationships he had would have been the same. Instead, I imagine a reception more along the lines of Howard Miller's in "An American in Palomar," when they found out his true motivations. I think that this encapsulates the most important effect of Sacco's choice of form--the intimacy of a drawing, and how much closer it brings documenter to documentee.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
You mentioned at the end of your post that "the intimacy of drawing" brings the "documenter and documentee" closer. I would agree with that, however, I think that another benefit of drawing over photography is the distancing effect drawings create with regards to the viewer. Had Sacco used photographs, he would have been more limited as to what images of violence and death he portrayed. A photograph attempts to capture reality and leaves less room for interpretation. Drawings, even when depicting something horrible, still leave a distance between the viewer and subject that a phototgraph does not, thus offering a kind of "safe area," if you will, in which to view war-torn Gorazde. Also, had Sacco used photographs he would not have been able to depict the flashback scenes, which comprise an important part of the novel.
Post a Comment