Once again defient you do not surprise me that you missed the point.
In his method of describing not only the language of comics and how it actually ties into daily life along with showing how comics by their very design fullfill pschological explanations of how we perceive Information and how it can be used to inform and also create emotional responses is very well aid.
Additionally his use of his family showed how he took the one thing his father lacked which was physical vision and made that the foundation of his entire career and approach to comics
not to say his father wasn't a visionionary because he did in fact create many things for the government that he himself could not even see.
But It also showed that even though on the surface it seemed as though he strayed far and away from what his Father and family may have done he was in actuality closer to it than originally thought.
the discussion itself was also designed to show as well as inform people who do not know the language of comics or to show those who think they know the language of comics that there is so much more to it than what is on the surface.
All of his "digressions" were far from wasted or pointless. They were used to showcase how everything he was discussing was not only connected but also how it lead full circle back to other conventions of perception.
when writers in conversation use the term -but I digress- it is usually used more in an effort to lend a pompous sense of credence to their own words on the subject at hand.
He uses it far batter.
Regarding the final portion of the lecture, I think he is correct in his assessment of looking at digital comics and the moniter it is shown on as a WINDOW. Because it is not a page. the mistake lies in trying to present it as a actual comics page. you don't physically touch it or turn it so why should it be made to conform to the required language of a completely different medium. It goes along with what he said about early attempts to add animation to a given panel on the page. when done in the confines of a printed comic presented on a screen it throws off the pacing that a printed comic has to conform to.
Animation delivers information far faster so it does not work.
By looking at the monitor as a screen it allows the Creator to challenge the boundries of the medium and present the story in a totally different and unique way.
And he was right on the money with that line of thought, because we are now seeing a wide range of approaches to digital comics.
Even when he was showing the differances in physically seeing something -vs- having blind faith n something and framing it the way he did with an Eye and Mary was a digital comic as it would be presented on the screen.
currently I have been messing around with my WARDRONE story by connecting it to Powerpoint to create a different reading experience.
also, It should be noted that all of the examples he showed are from the early 1990's and were initial experiments in the form.
they do not represent the current state of Digital beyond the fact that now comics are being reformatted to give the best interaction on a portable device.
So what he was pointing out is what is coming to pass.
It is an Interesting video that gives a ton of information.
Much of it known, and a lot of it never considered by the majority.
