The essay makes some good points. However the writer seems intent on putting more meaning into the physical limitations of the medium than are likely to exist.
"Comic book art’s backwater of purely instrumental and often arbitrary visual information was the horizon of meaning, the place where the reading experience became most individual. The tightly controlled wish fulfillment strategies of plot were unhinged by free-floating objects of desire – the details just out of reach, gazing back at us through the electrical field of process printing."
Frankly the above quote reminds me of some of my high school lit teachers who saw symbolism under every rock and word.
The 1960's Pop-Art comic panel reproductions did nothing but irritate me. The fact that DC tried out those silly Go-Go Check covers, and Marvel called themselves Pop-Art Productions seriously offended me in my late teens.
Hats off, however, to those who tried to do new things within the limits of the medium. Kirby's photo background panels are a prime example. More than one artist/colorist used multiple layers of Zip-A-Tone shading to create special effects. Similar, but animated, effects were used in the opening credits to the Green Hornet TV show.
Speaking of TV shows. The Adam West Batman show always seemed to be saying, with the sound effect drop-in slates, 'Look at how stupid comics are.' (IMO, only. YMMV) On the other end of the spectrum Warren Beatty's Dick Tracy was effectively shot using comics' limited palette in a respectful homage, not a put down.
