/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4716290
As other anons have said, I think this stems more from your relative unfamiliarity with comics as opposed to any specific failing of the medium. You're struggling to express these concepts not because they're visually unexpressable, but likely because you haven't thought about how they would be visually expressed.

You can communicate feeling through visuals just as easily (if not moreso) than you can through writing. A common mistake made by many is that visual representations of abstract concepts, such as the "fourth dimension," must consist of the closest thing to a literal portrayal possible in a 2D space. This is incorrect, and is indeed the battle that the Impressionists and Modernists waged in their days, if you're at all familiar with Art History. The Impressionists argued for Feeling over Portrayal--if it feels like the Fourth Dimension, then it is. The Modernists believed in the doing away of artistic pretense in order to boil the art down to its fundamental, physical manifestation--it's all ink on paper anyway, so if you say it's the Fourth Dimension, no one has any grounds to argue with you anyway.

You're coming at this from the standpoint of a writer as opposed to the standpoint of a visual artist. In writing, words must have agreed-upon meanings in order for things to make sense. In art, there is no intrinsic meaning, and thus meaning can be assigned, and, in turn, believed. Every time an image or aesthetic returns in the narrative, the audience will reconnect the art with the supplied associations, and adapt them to their new context.

So, in short, what I mean to say is that you're thinking too literally. Images aren't just representations of the script. They're unrelated images that are given structure via surrounding context. You can manipulate that context, and the images, to create associations that cannot exist in pure writing via the "empty" nature of artistic meaning.