After reading chapters 1-2 of Understanding Comics, answer the following questions here on the blog (follow the same instructions as for post #1):
1) What are 2 questions that came up for you while you were reading these chapters? [i.e. anything that was confusing, unclear? other questions that the reading made you think of?]
2) Why does the author spend so much time trying to pinpoint a definition of "comics?" On p. 23, he even approves of the idea that his definition will probably be rejected in the future. Why, then, is it so important for him to nail down a specific definition?
3) For you, what are the top 2 most intriguing ideas that the author raises in these 2 chapters? Spend at least 1 paragraph per idea, explaining why you find them so interesting.
Optional question to think about (and answer if you would like to): What is one thing that you see (in the world around you) that you think you will "see" differently now? Explain.
p.s. Don't forget to see my announcement below! :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Q" 1: First: Are images found in ancient caves/tombs/etc., are they comics? (ie: of their era? ours? neither? Hmmm?). Second: As the author puts it so well, our society is a "symbol-oriented culture", such that we see symbolism in things that originally were not interpreted as such. So it brings to question who is right? The original draft or the current reader of this draft? Does it depend on the era in which is doing the interpretation?
ReplyDelete"Q" 2: For one thing it appears the author is a "comic", feels an injustice (cheated) and feels this has been ongoing of giving "comics" their just worth. Another, is related because "comics" seemed to get grouped into /out of categories they don't belong, thus not giving "comics" self-worth.
On p.23: The author stipulates that basically every era tries with great effort to define their definition/reasons for clarifying what "comics" are. Once we give/identify such worth, we expect future generations to alter/re-define such definitions as to their new viewpoints "as they should", it's expected i suppose it shows growth and new viewpoints/ imagination. Pinpointing a specific definition, appears to give him (author) purpose and self-worth.
"Q" 3: In ch.1: The author/"comic" helps to define what a comic is. In the past(prior to this book), I always clumped comics in with other media as the unfinished stories that left lots of space for interpretation in the viewer. Now I find there is a lot more to a "comic" then I ever gave credit. Comics are now more interesting.
In ch.2: The author/"comic" points out how our society is an increasingly symbol oriented culture. The vocabulary of the comic. From complex-simple, realistic-iconic, objective-subjective, specific-universal. Abstract-specific, I noticed these are all valid points that I never gave much thought or credit to the comic. Now whether I understand a comic or not I definitely will see/notice more detail or lack of and try to seek out its intended meaning or perhaps just come up with my own, perhaps even redefining interpretation.
Optional "Q": Alot more going on in the world that I never noticed before. That images are found in things that were not intentionally put there in the first place. I personally noticed that after reading these first two(2)chapters, I started to see images in-n-around objects that I never acknowledged were there before(ie: faces/designs/objects/animals/buildings/space/etc.), intriguing indeed. Quite cool these new found images are. Using a lot more of my imagination then before.
Question 1:
ReplyDeletea) Is the author of the text aka the messenger trying to hint that all that art is and ever was has just been a form of comics?
b) Despite the definition of comics given it still doesn't explain how its been termed 'comics'. When I think of comics other words that come to mind are comical, funny, and humorous. The messenger is using this word for other works of sequential art that to me don't seem to have those qualities.
Question 2:
I feel that the author spends so much time on this firstly to establish a common idea while furthur explaining his perspective on comics so that the reader has a basis to build a foundation on. Secondly he acknowledges the fact that his definition will most likely be cast aside and replaced with a new one because of the simple truth that humans change constantly. The way people think today is vastly different than how people from thousands of years ago. Yet it still important to have an idea now to porject for perhaps his definition will help to define and develope a new one.
Question 3:
The first concept that the author brings to attention that caught my eye is how self-centered humans are. I found his theory of how people are able to relate to more iconic images and see themselves in it really interesting. From a simple figure of a face only created by two dots and a couple of lines, we can all see a face. I think by pointing this out it shows that humans learn from relating to other figures they percieve to similar to themselves.
The second idea is the whole pyramid ' The Universe of Comics' (pgs 51-57). I have never thought about reality, art, and words/langauge in such a way. But to me that actually makes a lot of sense that they all flow into each other and sometimes enhance the other. Its also interesting because all the areas of the pyramid no matter how real or unreal they seem are areas visited often by human thought. We are all familiar with the pyramid on a day to day basis.
Optional:
I think noticing the symbols more have opened my eyes so to speak. I had not realized how much people need sympbols to live. We use them in math/science, study them in literature, and even use them to know which bathroom is for the correct gender.
Q1: How come on pages 30 and 36 McCloud shies away from showing Mickey's face. It can't be a problem with the copyright because we see his face in the third row of sequences on page 36. Secondly I don't really understand what McCloud is trying to say when he states that visual iconography is all about this idea that we don't want goals so much as wanting roles.
ReplyDeleteQ2: I think he really wants to push it into our heads the questions, what comics are or what they could be. And with his definition comics become something older than Jesus. It's a little far out and pretty much destroys any preconception that a lot of people have about what comics are. And I think that's what he wants most, is for us to understand it's not just about Marmaduke or some dude running around in tights, this is art.
Q3: The most intriguing thing I found that McCloud presented is the idea that by simplifying an object or more importantly a person to a few lines, that drawing becomes "a blank slate." The artists' create a situation where we attach emotion to a simple drawing, which ultimately becomes an extension of who we are. So, after we get over the fact that comics are not these dorky-supposed to be for kids-books, they become a vessel of messages that ignore the limits of preconceived notions. There's no opportunity to judge them like we do random people, since we don't experience cartoon people in real life. Mimicking McCloud, if who the cartoon is matters less, then what they say hopefully will matter more. I think that's great because I believe we all could learn to listen more.
I also found his drawings a little intriguing. They make the book a little fun to read. The creativity he showed on page 47, mostly the second row, was cool. And the middle picture in the top row on page 41, i feel, is a pretty powerful image and works seamlessly with what's being said in the text box. I also like all the different characters and styles of cartoons he puts in the two chapters.
Q1: Is the author trying to convince the reader that most illustrations, drawings, historical paintings, and animation all a form of comics? This whole time, have we been to busy looking at things through one view and leaving out the whole picture and trying to understand the origin and context of it?
ReplyDeleteQ2: I feel that the author spends an enormous time trying to define "comics" because he understands that everyone has different opinions and their own definition of the term, so he is trying to explain his perspective. It is such a broad topic so Mccloud tries to narrow it down for our understanding by being as detailed and specific as possible in the book.
Q3: (CH. 1) Page 23 on the top row second illustration. This is a very simple illustration, but it gained my interest because I have never viewed simple diagrams/illustration/pictures as comics. On a daily basis we are exposed to comics all around if we use Mccloud's definition of ''comics.'' Examples: installing a printer (diagrams to show us how), safety hazard signs (there are pictures associated with them to help convey the message), washing our hands (hand picture gestures signs), etc.
(CH. 2) In chapter 2 the most intriguing idea is usually the quality and details of a cartoon catches our attention, but Mccloud explains otherwise. He believes that it is simply the shape the face that draws the attention to the character, and not necessarily the detailing of the eyes, nose or mouth.
Optional Q: I would love to see the world around me change by people becoming more environmentally conscious, and everyone living a greener life. This is something that would take years to accomplish and not something that would be visibly noticeable overnight, but if this could changed I would love to see what earth would be like in a decade.
1)One question that i had was what the difference between an icon was and a symbol?
ReplyDeleteIn the reading it mentioned that cartooning is a form of amplification through simplification. if a cartoonist does not simplify his cartoon, does it make it any less of a comic?
2)I think the author spends so much time trying to pinpoint a definition to show the reader the different aspects of what a comic can be. During the process of pinning down a specific definition, the author shows many different types of comics and how even a series of paintings or engravings can be comics. Throughout the first chapter, the author broadens his definiton of comics. He thinks his definition of comics will be rejected later because comics are a broad artform that can take place in many different ways.
3)The idea that comics have been around for so long and are more than just the Batman comics we know intrigued me. it was very interesting to know that french tapestries could be considered comics because it was a sequential art. The broad definition of what a comic could be surprised me. I never thought comics came before ther printings on paper.
Another idea that intrigued me was that cartooning is not just a way of drawing, but seeing. The fact that the cartoonist can manipulate what we see by differnt shadings and point of view was very interesting. I liked how he showed the diagram of the more realistic face, and then turned it into a cartoon one. it was interesting how he showed that we see ourselves more in the cartoon one becuase of the simplicity. It caught me by surprise, because I could see myself in the comic more with the simple circle face and two eyes.
Option) I think i will be more aware that my experiences are in the two realms of concept and senses. I never thought about it that way. I think I'll see what i do now more as the sense of seeing and touching, and smelling.
1) Why is it called "comics" when the earliest depictions weren't "comical" and moreover telling a serious story?... Who came up with the name?
ReplyDeleteWhy does comics have to be such a debatable topic
Why do icons play such an important role in comics?
2) The author is trying to show that comics cannot be contained in a single sentence or definition because it is such a broad topic. He is saying that there are so many factors that make up comics that comics in fact should be its own language (47). He knows that in the future more will be discovered about comics and the way in which they are written will change, but even so he is trying to display its meaning in this era.
3) One idea is that simple images (faces) remind us of ourselves rather than complex detailed images which remind us of other people. The idea that simplicity gives us a better understanding of what we are reading intrigues me because it would seem like readers would want to see more detailed images. McCloud understands how our minds work when looking at a picture and interpreting it. It intrigues me how he states on pg. 30 that we are basically focusing on specific details when simplifying a face, and that this amplifies the meaning of the picture.
Another idea that intrigues me is that comics began a very very long time ago, even in ancient times. It must mean that even ancient civilization were brilliant in their abilities. Even more astonishing is how McCloud was able to figure out how we are supposed to look at the comics and what the whole story that we are looking at means.
Optional) I think that when i look at certain people and objects I will be reminded of how McCloud states we see things and perceive them.
1)One question that the reading made me think of was: How close can an icon become so realistic to the point where it becomes a symbol?
ReplyDeleteAnother question that I thought up was: Would a comic be considered a comic if it only contained pictures, or are words required?
2)The authore spends so much time pinpointing the exact definition of a comic because he wants the reader to realize that it is not simply a silly book with pictures pf superheroes in tights but something on a much larger scale. It CAN be silly, but he wants us to understand that it doesn't have to be and it is at the point where words and images collide. It is important for him to nail down a specific definition so that the reader knows what he wants us to understand as a comic for the time being, until it is replaced in the future.
3)The first major idea that I thought was very important was: When the author described comics as the point where pictures and words collide, as if two sides og the same coin.
The second major idea that I thought was very important was when the author created the pyramid of the picture plane, reality and meaning, and even provided an example such as Stann Lee and where they stand on the pyramid. Both of these topics are so interesting because, for one, the pyramid actually works when you are attempting to organize different comic artists and how they work. My favorite part of both chapters was when he mentioned the coin metaphor because it really is the truth: comics require the coreect balance of words and images to be a comic.
4) One thing that I will see in the world differently now after I have read this is the importance of all images, symbols and icons, and the power that they connotate. I realize that humans, as he says, will not see two lines and two dots as so, but as a face and I find that extremely intriguing.=D
1) The writer claims that letters are "icons of language"(27). Does that mean a sequence of icons can make up a word? If so, Would that mean a word can also be an icon?
ReplyDelete2) It seems as if the author tries to find a solid definition to comics only so that it can be rejected in the future. The reason for this rejection is because comics are ever-changing.
3) I was very intrigued when the author pointed out that humans are so involved with themselves. We really do see our faces in just about everything and are able to turn the most strange shapes into faces with the addition of a dot. Before reading this, I always thought my car looked like it was happy, but now I know I think that because I'm part of a self centered race.
Another point made that fascinated me was on page 49 when he talked about abstracted pictures are similar to words because they require more perception. Likewise, when words are bolder they are more like pictures because less perception is required. This fascinated me because I realized how a bold word can be so similar to an abstract drawing.
Optional) Every time I look at something and think of it as having human emotions, I'll think twice and remember That I'm only doing so because I was born into such a self-centered race.
Q1: a) On page 36, Mr. McCloud said that when you enter the world of the cartoon, you see yourself. Is this also the way that artists write and illustrate their narratives? Do artists always see themselves in their work or characters, or are comics written as a product of one's imagination?
ReplyDeleteb) Don't all comics use the masking technique? According to Mr. McCloud, masking is identifying with a character and safely entering a sensually stimulating world. Don't all comics aim to make the reader enter that world which the comic is creating?
Q2: The author spends so much time trying to pinpoint a definition of "comics" in order to defy convention and address the stereotypes that society has given to "comics." He does this in order to differentiate what comics is from what it is not, and to make the readers realize that there is much more to comics than what most of us already see, know, and expect. It is important to have a specific definition of comics that relates to our own time and generation.
Q3: a) The idea that by stripping down an image to its essential meaning, an artist can amplify that meaning in a way that realistic art can't. This is intriguing to me because I have always thought that realistic art had more meaning and was more comparable to life because of its authenticity. It is an irony because the more abstract an image is, the more more people it can actually characterize.
b) The idea that we humans see ourselves in everything. We put meaning and emotion on inanimate objects, and we attach significance in images and places. We often do this, but we are seldom aware of it. This is interesting because in the simplest things, for example, cars, we see our own faces-eyes in the lights, and mouth in the bumper. We think about ourselves in almost everything.
Optional Q: I see the physical world differently now. The physical world, or sensual world, can actually possess character if we give them life. Our personalities and the way people see us can be transformed merely by physical objects.
1. a)One question i have is i didn't understand or i felt like the author kept having to try to persuade us to read comics.
ReplyDeleteb)I also didn't understand why the author felt that if his picture was more detailed that we wouldn't receive the message that he was trying to say.
2) I felt like the author was spending so much time on the definition because he probably feels like he has to make it perfect, because he wants people to look at the definition and feel intrigued and want to read comic books. He probably feels like his definition isn't good enough because so many people have different views about comics that if they were to read the definition that they wouldn't agree with it.
3)a. One question i have was on page 24 when he was talking about the pipe how to me it was a pipe, but to the author it wasn't a pipe or a picture or a drawing he just kept going on and on about how when we see objects that we think mean something in fact they are not. They are just icons.
b. Another idea i though was interesting was the fact that we see ourselves in everything. I never really thought myself as a comic or an icon. But i guess if you take away all the intricate lines and details that we are. And because of this idea of his i will see ourselves in everything.
Optional: I think that when i see everything now a car or even an outlet i will see a smile which is kind of weird.
1) a. Why does the author insist on giving such a complex definition of a comic when he claims it can easily be explained as "sequential art"?
ReplyDeleteb. Why is it that whenever we something similar to face we automatically think of a human face? (as seen on page 32)
2) The author feels he has to pin-point the definition of "comics" because so many people seem to have a false understanding of what comics really are. He's trying to separate them from all other art form.
3) a. I find it intriguing yet ironic how the author implies that a comic is one of the most objective art forms known to man but goes so far out of his way to give such a subjective definition of a it. In that he has such a bias against cartoons which clearly seem to fit the criteria of a comic.
b. I also find it very interesting when the author describes a complex, realistic picture compared to simple, abstract picture. It's strange that such a simple drawing can seem so much more complicated than a realistic one. In that the simple one is so much more opened to interpretation. It leaves more to the imagination which makes it more intriguing than the complicity of realism.
1.a) McCloud goes over the definition of comics, but it is still kind of grey in some areas; where do we draw the line on what is, and what isn’t a comic?
ReplyDeleteb) Has everything originated from comics? (well at least art) Why has this been the first time most of us have been introduced to this idea if it has been so impacting?
2.McCloud spends a great deal of time in the first chapter coming up with a definite definition for the word ‘comics’. Throughout the first couple of pages, each definition is either rejected, questioned, or built upon. As readers we are given a final definition so we are able to have a better concept of comics, even though it is still vague. This way, we are able to start our own idea of the groundwork of what comics are. I think by giving the readers so many examples of what is, and what isn’t a comic, McCloud wants his audience to establish their own definition of comics as well. McCloud also knows his definition will eventually be rejected by future artists, but it is still important for the readers of today to know where the ‘modern world of comics’ stand at the current time.
3.One of the most interesting ideas presented in these chapters, was about the simplicity of the drawing of the comics. When simplified down into two dots, a line, and a circle we are able to identify with the comic, but when the comic is complex, it reminds us of others instead. I have never thought of the mind working in such ways.
On page 49, McCloud discusses how words and pictures do in fact go hand and hand, and actually complement each other when it comes to comics. McCloud tells us that when pictures are simplified, or more abstract, they require higher levels of thinking; like words. And when words are more direct, and straightforward, higher knowledge is not required; like pictures. Its intriguing at how well two different ideas can work together to convey one, single message.
4.After reading these 2 chapters, I hope I will be more observant in my surroundings and how my mind comprehends different ideas, as well as pictures. I also hope not to see myself when getting into my car now.
1.) The writer mentions about a woodcut artist. pg 18 What exactly is woodcut art? another question i had was... is the pyramid of genres frequently presented by McCloud the borders of EVERYTHING that has been explored and invented of comics?
ReplyDelete2.) I believe the author spends so much time trying to pinpoint a definition of comics to narrow down and specify to as best he can what a comic is to separate it and not raise many questions of comparison to other ideas like film/animation/still art.
3.) One idea that intrigued me was the idea of using realistic materials as an extension to ones self. The thought of myself being one with my car and/or bike to function as a single instrument was interesting. Even a musical instrument to produce music or using a knife to cut can be an extension of yourself. I find it interesting because now that i think about it all those tools are extensions of myself that i use about everyday.
Another intriguing idea was amplification through simplification. Information can be easier to learn and be taught more effectively by simplifying it into simpler/plainer shapes or words. Pictures, information and ideas can be broken down from a more complex form into a simpler form to enhance its meaning.
Optional- I'll probably look at the symbols on bathrooms differently because after reading these chapters i sort of take a different point of view and realize that those shapes tell me which door to go into.
#1) A question that occurred to me while reading chapters 1 and 2 of UC was, how are we suppposed to refer to a certain comic? For example how we refer to a certain quote from a book by writing the page number and paragraph,does that same rule appy? or is there another way of referring to the comic we are talking about?
ReplyDeleteAlso i found it difficult to follow the pictures and understand what McCloud was trying to say in pgs.11-13 because there wasn't any color. To me it looked like a bunch of squigley lines and different shapes.
#2)I believe McCloud spent so much time trying to pinpoint a definition of comics because he wanted to give present and future readers a "proper definition" (3) He also mentions on page 18 how so many comics of this century have not recieved the recognition they deserve because "the word comics has such a negative connotation." Maybe if we give an exact definition the stereotypes of comics will lessen and more comics will recieve the respect they fully deserve.
#3)One idea that the author points out that i found interesting was how our mind can turn a bunch of odd shapes into faces by simply adding a dot. He mentions that "we humans are a self-centered race" (32) and how we see ourselves in simple objects such as cars, a semi colon and hyphen :) and even math terms: (0,0). I always saw these things around me but i never realized it was because we are self centered.
Next he talks about how our face is only a mask and how it is seen by everyone we encounter but you never actually see your own face. You only see a vaugue image of what is in your mind. How that same concept is interpreted into a cartoon is the intriguing part. I found it cool how he mentioned something that i have thought about continuously.
1) a-If comics are as historical and profound as the author makes them out to be, why then is this the first time I've ever studied them?
ReplyDeleteb- I don't understand why the author spends so much time discussing the negative connotations of comics and the affects that negativity has on comics, without ever addressing a cause.
2) The author is obviously very passionate about comics, and i believe that he strives to find a definition for them because he wants to legitimize comics as an art and literary form and the first step to achieving that goal would be to give meaning the the genre. That's why I believe that he is okay with his definition being rejected and replaced, because that would mean that future generations would also care enough to define comics.
3) I found it interesting how the author brought up that the simplicity of cartoons doesn't dull details but actually amplifies them. When he brought this up I thought of a smiley face, which is ,obviously, conveying happiness. Then I thought of a picture of a smiling man. That man could be happy, yes, but he could also be surprised, or merely smiling for the camera. Cartoons zero in on the chosen idea of the author, and are not muddled by any outside factors. Beforehand I merely thought of cartoons as simple, but now I realize that they are an effective literary medium.
I also found it very interesting how the author explained our proclivity to see ourselves in objects. I can remember as a child, seeing a house with two evenly spaced windows over an open garage door. At the time I thought it looked like a face with its mouth open, and I probably still would today. It was just something that I did and do, without thinking about it. I really enjoy when something everyday is explained in a way that makes it seem extraordinary, and that's exactly what the author did in this case.
Question 1:
ReplyDeleteIn the reading, many questions had run through my mind as i listened to the writer try to elaborate on the definition and origin of comic books. The first question i thought of was do we weigh the art of a comic more heavily or the actual writing. The next question that had popped up in my mind was whether or not many cartoon artist are educated in English or Literature.
Question 2:
I feel the author spends so much time trying to pinpoint the definition of comics because if he does not give a proper definition than his whole argument for the respect of comics will not be accepted. It is important for him to nail a specific definition of comics because once there is a set definition then it is easy to move on and elaborate on comics from that point.
Question 3:
In chapters 1 and 2, an intriguing thing i found was how passionate the author was on trying to educate the people of today on how much depth there is in comics in regards to literary elements. I liked the example he used on page 19 while describing a drawing from Max Ernst, saying "In the work, Ernst doesnt want you to browse the thing, he wants you to read it!" By just looking t the different features of the drawing we are able to conjure up hundreds of speculations about it.
The second intriguing thing i found in the reading was the statement about how us humans are a "self-centered race." The authors example using the idea of us seeing faces in anything is great, and if we look closer at different aspect of our society we can also see that. we glorify ourselves through things like myspace and facebook trying to show the world how great we are. Whenever i look at an electrical outlet, i can not help but make the association with a face being worried.
Optional Question: One thing in the world that i would like to see differently is the way i view things that are rooted in simplicity, like cartoons. We usually blow off anything that seems so basic, but if we look close enough, we are able to give comic books the credit they deserve
Q1 The thing that confused me is McCloud's theory on p36-37--the general placement of "ourselves" in cartoons/comics. McCloud's belief that "when you enter the world of the cartoon--you see yourself" really doesn't make sense to me. I don't really feel that much more absorbed or transcended into a story merely because the characters are drawn overly simplistic, couldn't it just be analyzed as a different art style and not some subconcious mind game?
ReplyDeleteQ2 McCloud wants to demonstrate early on that even comics, which can be seen afar as a seemingly simple medium, is really complex and intricate when magnified. The list of what the defintion of comics does not mean shows that comics can really be anything the comic artist makes of it.
Q3 Pg58 - That the world is ever changing and the gradual advancement with symbols that provide simple but effective communications and the mention of "universal communication" intrigued me because McCloud deemed it as possibly happening in the future.
pg52-57 - The pyramid intrigued me in that it creates different values, or motives, in creating art. The limitless the pyramid conveys provides all these "forms of expressions" that make me feel like we've only just begun not too long ago and the continuous process of refinement will continue on.
1) Do we put our identities into characters more often when we don't have our own sense of identity? If younger people more often place their identities into comic book characters, could it be one reason adults frown upon comics?
ReplyDelete2)I think the author spends so much time on the definition in order for the reader to understand what the book is about. For the time of the book, the author wants the reader to have the same definition as he so the author understands his viewpoints.
3) One interesting thing the author brings up is the happy face. I had never realized amplification through simplification applied to images. I see that it is indeed easier to place your identity into the simple face than one full of vivid detail.
Anther interesting point is the abstraction of images. Words and pictures, to me, were completely different things. Now though, i see that words are indeed an abstraction. It makes me wonder how to form a picture of a word that cannot be pictured. If not all words can be pictures, then words might not completely derived from images.
1) It was difficult at first to understand the triangular diagram of the pictorial vocabulary. I was asking myself "what is the difference between the iconic representative images and the non-iconic picture plane drawings?" I did not understand how a comics artist would use them differently, and how they fit into the structure of the triangle.
ReplyDeleteThe second question I pondered was "how and why does the human brain assume the identity of another?" McCloud explained the phenomenon by demonstrating that the human mind acts out the ink-on-paper drawings into life, but I want to know more about how and why this occurs, and how it manifests itself in life besides in comics and cars. It would really let us know more about ourselves.
2) The author's objective in ch. 1 is to destroy any preconceived notions about comics. He feels that comics are not viewed highly in society because of a limited understanding of what can be defined as comics. He therefore discovers a precise definition for comics in order to actually broaden it. As McCloud's cartoon persona notes on pg. 21, "the secret is not in what the definition says but what it doesn't say!" Whatever the value of his definition to future generations, he wants the reader to see the megaverse of possibilities under the umbrella of "comics," and nails down a definition for this purpose.
3) I already explained earlier how intriguing it was that the human mind assumes the identity of a cartoon. Because comics are extremely abstracted images, yet still perceivable as characters and environments, the mind fills in the details and imagines the static pictures as it thinks it should be: a flow of events and actions by the characters. Because the cartoon figures are incomplete, the life and persona given to them by the mind has degrees of freedom, varying in interpretation from reader to reader. Thus the reality in a cartoon is based on the imagination of the reader; the story and universe are participatory, essentially creations of the reader's own imagination with the help of the author. I found the concept downright amazing, not only because it explains how people connect with any communicative medium, but also because I feel that role playing is crucial to how we learn and think.
Another intriguing concept was the dichotomy of words and pictures, and how they are both alike and dissimilar. It was interesting how when simplified, both the picture and word mold together, the picture interpretive like a word and the word sensual like a picture. The spectrum of realism to conceptualism illuminated what words and pictures are for and how they work together to convey messages by stimulating the imagination.
Optional: I will probably be aware of every time I will have to role play. I'll see the difference in how I actually perceive things. Some of the images I see are with my own eyes, but the rest are projections of my mind's eye. I'll probably better understand which is which, which is reality and which are my imagination.
1. a) Doesn't all art have the possibility to be a comic in the mind of the reader or perceiver?
ReplyDeleteb) When Scott talks about icons and symbols, when does an icon become a symbol?
2. McCloud spends so much time trying to pinpoint the definition of the word comic because he is writing this book intending to educate the masses who know little to none about comics. For him, comics makes sense inside his head, but it is possible that is difficult for him to explain the concept. He breaks it down into details to make is simplier for his readers to understand. He says that his definition will change because comics just like art is ever changing and the styles and techniques change, so will the definitions.
3. One very intriguing idea that McCloud raises in the first chapter was that comics were used hundreds of years ago. Today people take comics for granite and use them for entertainment. However back in the old days, the use for these comics was to instruct and inform about daily lives, almost like instructions in a book. It is interesting how comics has evolved over the hundreds of years. Like McCloud says comics could totatly change in the future and I am starting to believe it.
A second interesting topic the author brings up is the idea that simplifying an image could actually amplify the meaning of an image more so than a detailed picture. This idea strikes me as interesting because of the way I learned to be detailed in my writing to paint the picture of what I am writing for my readers. However in comics simplicity is truly bliss. Simplicity allows you to be more creative of how you look at an image. The face with two dots and a line could have infinate possiblities to different people. I am interested in seeing how the rest of this book(comic) pans out.
1) While reading the first two chapters, my main question, though not the mosty intellectual of questions, was whether or not Scott McCloud was both the author AND illustrator or just the author. I know it is not the most difficult question, but i was thinking about it during every little box of comic if you will. Also sparking a quesation in my mind was whether or not comics should be thought more highy of than a regular novel and/or a piece of art, for comics are not merely childish drawings and cheesy stories, but can have meaning behind the words. Not only does the maturity of the comic come into play, but also the fact that there are two types of art in comics, a story as well as cartoon drawings, double the fun.
ReplyDelete2)McCloud accept that future generations will reject the present day ideas of comics, and also approves of their rejection. I believe this is because he respects that people will continue to come up with their own ideas of what comics are. He describes what he believes the definition of comics is mainly because he himself is a comic artist, therefore he probably wants to understand the art in which he participates as well as educating the reader on his art form.
3) One of the most interesting concepts McCloud discussed was in the beginning of chapter 2 between pages 24-26 where he talks about a painting by Magritte called “The Treachery of Images.” The initiation of the discussion begins with the inscription on the picture which says, ”This is not a pipe.” Clearly, however, the picture is most definitely a pipe, but the comic begs to differ. This is where the concept of reality begins. I loved how each box of comic went deeper into reality from saying this is not a pipe to this is a printed copy of a pipe. I also enjoyed on page 26 all of the different symbols with quotations under them saying that what you would believe the object is, is not at all correct.
I also enjoyed the concept of reality with the example of the photograph which began as a man who nobody else looks like and ended up being a smiley face with a circle, two dots and a line for a smile. Between the clear picture and the smiley face, the progress from reality the abstraction was shown. This occurred between pages 28-31, and got more in depth in regards to abstraction along the way. Within this text, the part that said, “Why would anyone young or old, respond to a cartoon as much or more than a realistic image?” This made me think about the situation, which I enjoyed.
(Optional)
I think i may possibly view each individual as a more abstract image now, by seeing them possibly as a mouth and two eyes. What I believe sets the person apart, is their integrity and personality.
1) By including the Egyptian paintings in his examples of ancient comics, is Scott McCloud implying that panels are not an intrinsic part of comics? The examples from ancient cultures brings to mind questions about other cultures I'm more familiar with: can the terracotta art of the Nok folk, placed in a sequence, be considered a comic?
ReplyDelete2) The author believes that people already have a definition of comics in their minds and by forcing them to reexamine it, and come up with a new one, he can breakdown their preconceptions and enable them (us) to see comics in a new light. Furthermore, definitions are the axioms, foundations, upon which knowledge is built. By creating a definition now, it will be easier to explore the subject.
3) I find the idea that icons seem to pulse with more life that their hyperrealistic counterparts. It's even when more interesting when considering the differences between iconic faces and photorealistic faces. I assumed that the realistic face would be easier to identify with, as it is more easily and quickly identified as human, but that's not the case.
Another idea I found intriguing was that the Japanese have developed very different icons due to their isolation. My assumption was that because human nature is universal to all cultures, at the level of icons and concepts what each culture comes up with would be very similar.