Mask Squinting 2: The Legend Continues

[J. Agamemnon]

This isn't logical.

If a halo, or whoosh-line, is an artistic tool to represent something but isn't physically happening within the reality of the book, why then is mask-squinting not a similar tool? Why is it that if there's a big blue sonar energy field smacking someone in the face, it's considered to be there to show us it looks like sonar, but in 'reality', it's invisible? Why is it that a sound effect is also invisible to the characters in the story and visible only to us? Why is it that mask-squinting, however, is a totally visible, occurring phenomena that the characters can see, and not a stylistic gesture only the audience can see?

Is it because it's the character themselves that is the symbol and not a floating, external icon? If so, then why aren't 'blurred' images equally silly, since of course, the character isn't physically blurred, yet the gesture is the character's body not an external icon?

And this is particularly bizarre in relation to Spider-Man, since he's always had the "split-face" with one half Peter Parker and the other half Spider-Man.

The mask is squinting as much as the psychic blast is pink.

Well, essentially "whooshes and psychic blasts are visual verbs. They're there to help promote the action or dialogue. Mask squinting didn't really come along until what, early 90's when all the older writers were essentially being phased out of the industry; writers that used to put word boxes in the corner of the bigger panels to tell you what the hero was feeling. Then, the hero would go onto their own monologue, specifically Spider-Man, which I believe is E's beef. Mask squinting wasn't necessary, not that it ever really was, but writers now are lazy and we live in the age of ADHD so most people are okay with it. I applaud E for standing against it. Maybe it's a sign of the death of the Golden Age.

 

[E]

If a halo, or whoosh-line, is an artistic tool to represent something but isn't physically happening within the reality of the book, why then is mask-squinting not a similar tool?

Because halos and whoosh lines do not alter the actual appearance of the character as he appears in the story.

The "split face" is not his actual appearance. Therefore it's OK. I don't particularly care for it, but because it's representative and not actually happening in the story, it's the same as a halo or whoosh line.

Or sound effect for that matter. The words aren't actually there in the story.

 

[Bass]

Because it's not.

Because halos and whoosh lines do not alter the actual appearance of the character as he appears in the story.

The "split face" is not his actual appearance. Therefore it's OK. I don't particularly care for it, but because it's representative and not actually happening in the story, it's the same as a halo or whoosh line.

Or sound effect for that matter. The words aren't actually there in the story.

This is precisely my point. This is a distinction only you make.

Why is mask-squinting different? Why is the mask squinting actually there in the story? Why is it his actual appearance and not just representative of their emotional state?

In other words:

There is no difference. You've said that mask squinting isn't okay because it affects the actual appearance of a character, yet blurring effects and the split face do and they're okay because of the reason that they're 'not really there'. Therefore, the same is true for mask squinting since it's not really happening. It is no different to any other gesture which alters the environment or the appearance of a character. It's only actually 'happening' if you say it's happening, much like there's only a big white speech bubble floating above the Comedian and Silk Spectre if you say it's there. So if it's illogical and nonsensical, that's because you've chosen to say that it is and not because it actually is any of those things.

 

[thee great one]

That is probably the best counter argument yet.

 

[E]

That is probably the best counter argument yet.

I agree. Unfortunately I disagree.

None of those things - whoosh lines, halos, words, etc. - changes the character themselves. Halos are close, but they appear around the character. Take the words, halos, etc., out, and the appearance is the same. Not so with squinty masks.

 

[Dr.Strangefate]

I disagree with the premise that simple cloth cannot contract and contort itself in response to a person's expressions.

 

[Gemini]

I disagree with the premise that simple cloth cannot contract and contort itself in response to a person's expressions.

espeacially when it's skin-tight like say Spider-Man or Deadpool

doubly so when it comes to ole cancer-face because all the scabs and lesions provide ample frictional surface area for the mask to cling to and move along with his face

 

[Jaggyd]

*coughs*

 

[J. Agamemnon]

espeacially when it's skin-tight like say Spider-Man or Deadpool

doubly so when it comes to ole cancer-face because all the scabs and lesions provide ample frictional surface area for the mask to cling to and move along with his face

well that's just horse crap because then we'd have all kinds of loveable masked robbers in the news. If anything, a tight mask restricts facial movement. Not to mention the fact that it would hinder breathing patterns.

 

[Ultimate Houde]

Weird.

Didn't we already have this discussion?

 

[Bass]

I agree. Unfortunately I disagree.

None of those things - whoosh lines, halos, words, etc. - changes the character themselves. Halos are close, but they appear around the character. Take the words, halos, etc., out, and the appearance is the same. Not so with squinty masks.

This is invalid by your own words.

Because halos and whoosh lines do not alter the actual appearance of the character as he appears in the story.

The "split face" is not his actual appearance. Therefore it's OK. I don't particularly care for it, but because it's representative and not actually happening in the story, it's the same as a halo or whoosh line.

Or sound effect for that matter. The words aren't actually there in the story.

The actual appearance of the character can be altered by representative gestures. You've said so yourself.

Quicksilver is not actually blurred, nor is he in two places at once. This is done to show that he is superfast. His physical appearance is altered. Yet, it is okay because it is representative.

Spider-Man is not actually wearing half his mask. This is done to dramatically show that he is secretly Spider-Man. His physical appearance is altered. Yet, it's okay because it's representative.

Spider-Man's mask has not actually changed shape. This is done to show his emotional state despite being in a mask. His physical appearance is altered. Yet, even though its representative, you claim it's not okay.

These three abstractions are all altering the appearance of the character, yet, you claim one is invalid. This is arbitrary and self-contradictory.

 

[Random]

To add to Bass' point, do any other characters reference Spider-man's mask changing, if not that the mask isn't moving just the audience's perception of it. I can see that happening to Deadpool because he's suppose to be a joke on the industry

 

[Void.M]

*coughs*

This is win.

 

[Victor Von Doom]

Quicksilver is not actually blurred, nor is he in two places at once. This is done to show that he is superfast. His physical appearance is altered. Yet, it is okay because it is representative.

In my opinion, E was winning the argument......until Bass posted this.





Although, now that I think about it....Bass' point could be null because the "blurred-dual" representation of Quicksilver is basically Hitch's "realistic" version of old-time speed lines. Which as mentioned before, is the same as pink psychic halos. It's not actually there and doesn't alter the "actual" look of the character.

 

[E]

I disagree with the premise that simple cloth cannot contract and contort itself in response to a person's expressions.

espeacially when it's skin-tight like say Spider-Man or Deadpool

doubly so when it comes to ole cancer-face because all the scabs and lesions provide ample frictional surface area for the mask to cling to and move along with his face

well that's just horse crap because then we'd have all kinds of loveable masked robbers in the news. If anything, a tight mask restricts facial movement. Not to mention the fact that it would hinder breathing patterns.

Exactly. J is right. Put on a mask - even a "skin tight" mask - and see how much it moves when you contort your face. Very little, and only at points like the chin and cheekbone. Even if it is skin-tight, it's not skin. And it doesn't stick or "cling" to the skin.

And that's beside the point. The eye pieces of a mask like that would not move at all or open wider or close tighter.

Although, now that I think about it....Bass' point could be null because the "blurred-dual" representation of Quicksilver is basically Hitch's "realistic" version of old-time speed lines. Which as mentioned before, is the same as pink psychic halos. It's not actually there and doesn't alter the "actual" look of the character.

That is exactly right. Nothing on his body/costume is changing.

The actual appearance of the character can be altered by representative gestures. You've said so yourself.

No I didn't. Never once. That's the crux of my argument. The half-mask, the blurry Quicksilver - neither of those characters are FUNDAMENTALLY altered. There are tools applied to help the reader understand what is going on, but nothing on their actual bodies/costumes is being changed.

With the squinty mask you have part of his ACTUAL mask changing when it does not possess the ability to do so. It's a real, tangible (within the story) part of him that is changing for no explainable reason.

I understand where you are coming from

 

[Dr.Strangefate]

espeacially when it's skin-tight like say Spider-Man or Deadpool

doubly so when it comes to ole cancer-face because all the scabs and lesions provide ample frictional surface area for the mask to cling to and move along with his face

No... You see, mine was a joke. But I appreciate you jumping to my aid.

For the record this doesn't bother me at all. It seems to be a technique mostly used by the more stylistic artists and not the more realistic artists. If an Alex Ross Spidey had mask squinting, I would prolly freak out a little, but since that is not the case, It has never bugged me.

 

[Bass]

Although, now that I think about it....Bass' point could be null because the "blurred-dual" representation of Quicksilver is basically Hitch's "realistic" version of old-time speed lines. Which as mentioned before, is the same as pink psychic halos. It's not actually there and doesn't alter the "actual" look of the character.

That is exactly right. Nothing on his body/costume is changing.

Yes it is. First of all, he now has TWO bodies/costumes instead of one. That is a rather substantial change, duplication.

In the third panel, she has two left hands. Her hands are no longer attached to her arms, which are now missing, only a shoulder remains. In the first panel, she has SPIKES growing out of her feet.

You read these vast, and much more obtuse changes than a squinting mask as "special effects" because they mimic photographic phenomena. They are as much a change as anything else.

No I didn't. Never once. That's the crux of my argument. The half-mask, the blurry Quicksilver - neither of those characters are FUNDAMENTALLY altered. There are tools applied to help the reader understand what is going on, but nothing on their actual bodies/costumes is being changed.

With the squinty mask you have part of his ACTUAL mask changing when it does not possess the ability to do so. It's a real, tangible (within the story) part of him that is changing for no explainable reason.

I understand where you are coming from

So the problem is the character's appearance is fundamentally altered in so much as it has altered proportions? That doesn't hold up either.

Spider-Man's mask is not "half-and-half". It is FULL. He cannot only wear a 'perfect' half. By your reasoning, the only way he could be allowed such a half-half is if he actually has, at home in a cupboard somewhere, a proper half-mask. Otherwise, the split face is distorting his mask by ignoring half of it.

Oh, and the split-face I showed has a mouth hole too.

The split-face is distorted. Blur effects distort the costume. The mask squinting doesn't change the costume in the dramatic sense you make it. It distorts the eye hole.

It distorts the eyes as much as blurs distort the legs and the hands and the body.

There is not one, single, element of the mask-squinting that isn't visible in many other cartoonish exaggerations you exempt from 'illogicality' and 'stupidity'.

It is representative. It distorts the character's fundamental appearance. Both of these apply to blur lines and the 'after-images' effect of fast, complex actions, who distort the fundamental appearance by making it incoherent or by duplicating it. These apply when a character's head is disembodied and floating for narrative purposes which distort the fundamental appearance by exclusion. When a character's entire image is distorted for a dream sequence, or when a character's entire colour scheme is altered in order to represent the lighting of an area, or a shift in the character's current mind-set, or because he's in an otherworldy realm. This is the case when an artist decides to overemphasise a creepy element of a character by distorting his appearance in an inhuman way, like, say, reducing a set of regular eyes into perfect, tiny, yellow circles.

That, right there, is Kid Miracleman, "mask-squinting".

And he's not even wearing a mask.

 

[Ultimate Houde]

Bass just ruined Miracle Man for me.

 

[E]

Yes it is. First of all, he now has TWO bodies/costumes instead of one. That is a rather substantial change, duplication.

In the third panel, she has two left hands. Her hands are no longer attached to her arms, which are now missing, only a shoulder remains. In the first panel, she has SPIKES growing out of her feet.

No. Those are visual tools. She doesn't literally, within the confines of the story, have two left hands. If she had a super power that was to project an extra left hand and use it to fight that would be different. That's not what is happening.

You read these vast, and much more obtuse changes than a squinting mask as "special effects" because they mimic photographic phenomena. They are as much a change as anything else.

But it (mask squinting) is not mimicing photographic phenomena. It's a literal change in the character's appearance. The examples you have are mimicing photographic phenomena

Spider-Man's mask is not "half-and-half". It is FULL. He cannot only wear a 'perfect' half. By your reasoning, the only way he could be allowed such a half-half is if he actually has, at home in a cupboard somewhere, a proper half-mask. Otherwise, the split face is distorting his mask by ignoring half of it.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. I'm saying he's not literally wearing a mask, so it doesn't matter if it's only a half mask. There is no mask there. When the mask squints, it is a real mask that he is wearing, and it is changing shape. It's an actual object.

Oh, and the split-face I showed has a mouth hole too.

Blur effects distort the costume.

Only to the reader, because it's a visual tool. Insert yourself in the scene there and there is no literal blur.

If you're going to go that far, why not make the argument that you wouldn't even see him because he's too fast?

The mask squinting doesn't change the costume in the dramatic sense you make it. It distorts the eye hole.

You're making my point for me. Yes, it distorts the eye hole, which does not have the ability to become distorted in that manner. It is distorting the eyehole - the ACTUAL mask, and not a representation.

There is not one, single, element of the mask-squinting that isn't visible in many other cartoonish exaggerations you exempt from 'illogicality' and 'stupidity'.

It is representative. It distorts the character's fundamental appearance. Both of these apply to blur lines and the 'after-images' effect of fast, complex actions, who distort the fundamental appearance by making it incoherent or by duplicating it. These apply when a character's head is disembodied and floating for narrative purposes which distort the fundamental appearance by exclusion. When a character's entire image is distorted for a dream sequence, or when a character's entire colour scheme is altered in order to represent the lighting of an area, or a shift in the character's current mind-set, or because he's in an otherworldy realm. This is the case when an artist decides to overemphasise a creepy element of a character by distorting his appearance in an inhuman way, like, say, reducing a set of regular eyes into perfect, tiny, yellow circles.

That, right there, is Kid Miracleman, "mask-squinting".

And he's not even wearing a mask.

It's NOT representative. There is a clear and indisputable difference between a visual effect that a character in the story would never see and a fundamental change that they WOULD or SHOULD see.

I'm also not sure what you are arguing with the Kid Miracleman image. If that's what it appears to be - a regular mask (even though I suppose it could be argued that with his powers he could theoretically alter his mask but that's beside the point - Spider-Man can't), then it is wrong as well.

Posting examples like that is only useful in showing that other people are drawing things like that - I'm not arguing against that. I'm not saying people don't do it or someone shouldn't like it. Just that it is an extremely poor and ill-conceived practice.

ETA: Re: Kid Miracleman - I don't have the issues in front of me, but is he even wearing a mask in that scene? I seem to remember he was not.

 

[Bass]

No. Those are visual tools. She doesn't literally, within the confines of the story, have two left hands. If she had a super power that was to project an extra left hand and use it to fight that would be different. That's not what is happening.

Spidey doesn't, literally, within the confines of the story have a squinting mask.

I cannot make it any clearer.

But it (mask squinting) is not mimicing photographic phenomena. It's a literal change in the character's appearance. The examples you have are mimicing photographic phenomena

That doesn't make it logical. There are no cameras taking a photo. It's not representative of a photo. So why is it mimicking photographic phenomena? Because the artist thinks it looks cool.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here. I'm saying he's not literally wearing a mask, so it doesn't matter if it's only a half mask. There is no mask there. When the mask squints, it is a real mask that he is wearing, and it is changing shape. It's an actual object.

Foreshortening is changing the shape. The blur effect changes the shape by elongating certain proportions and shortening others.

Oh, and the split-face I showed has a mouth hole too

Only to the reader, because it's a visual tool. Insert yourself in the scene there and there is no literal blur.

Insert yourself in the scene and there is no literal mask-squinting.

If you're going to go that far, why not make the argument that you wouldn't even see him because he's too fast?

Because you'd say that's not what you're arguing and it's 'not the same thing'? But also because the comic panel isn't a camera. And because it's hard to show something if it's invisible. But Hitch did do that in Ultimates as well as the blur.

You're making my point for me. Yes, it distorts the eye hole, which does not have the ability to become distorted in that manner. It is distorting the eyehole - the ACTUAL mask, and not a representation.

The blur effect is distorting the ACTUAL leg and not a representation of the leg.

It's NOT representative. There is a clear and indisputable difference between a visual effect that a character in the story would never see and a fundamental change that they WOULD or SHOULD see.

I'm also not sure what you are arguing with the Kid Miracleman image. If that's what it appears to be - a regular mask (even though I suppose it could be argued that with his powers he could theoretically alter his mask but that's beside the point - Spider-Man can't), then it is wrong as well.

Posting examples like that is only useful in showing that other people are drawing things like that - I'm not arguing against that. I'm not saying people don't do it or someone shouldn't like it. Just that it is an extremely poor and ill-conceived practice.

ETA: Re: Kid Miracleman - I don't have the issues in front of me, but is he even wearing a mask in that scene? I seem to remember he was not.

He's not WEARING a mask. THAT is his regular face. And the artist decided to give him tiny, perfectly circular, beady eyes to make him creepy. He distorted his face for one panel to make it look cool.

Posting examples is supposed to show you, by comparing one tool to another, that they're the same tool and the difference isn't that one is logical and one isn't, but that you like one, and you don't like the other. And that's all there is to it.

I think we should replace the zen question of "If a tree falls in the woods with no one around, does it make a sound?" to "If Spidey's spider-sense is going, and half his face is a mask, is it okay if the mask half squints?"