Lab+3

=**Do you agree or disagree with McLuhan when he defines comics as an extension of photographic media?** =

McLuhan defines photography as a hot media; a media allowing less participation as only one sense is emphasized. For example, in the case of photography only the sense of sight is emphasized. I can see where McLuhan builds his reasoning in definining comics as an extension of photographic media as he defines comic as a cool media; one which requires more attention and effort to derive meaning. In observing the mechanics of a comic book, it may seem logical to say that comics are indeed an extension of photographs. It seems that comics string together images of photographic likeliness to build a story or myth. We are presented with images and the absence of images which lead us to deduce some form of story. And in this sense I would agree that comics are an extension of photographic media.

However, it also seems that McLuhan is underestimating photographic media as defining it as a mere cool media. I believe that there are photographers with the capabilities of an author or artist in creating a visual story or at least a media that requires more than one sense and more effort to deduce meaning. Just as a comic book, a photograph can present form and void that leads the viewer to deduce a story or myth.

So ultimately, yes I do agree that comics are an extension of photographic media however it seems photographic can still bring about the same effects as hot media. I think it just depends on the craftmanship and creativity behind the work. It depends on how greatly the artist wants the viewer to derive meaning.