In the first chapter of Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art, Scott McCloud attempts to dispel any notion of inferiority comic books are usually predisposed to. Comics are not only objects but mediums in themselves as well. Two or more images in a sequence can be considered a comic in reference to the medium. The medium of comics entails the combination of writers, artists, trends, genres, styles, subject matter and themes. Visually, the juxtaposition of imagery within a comic book achieves the same narrative result as the sequential presentation of film through time. McCloud goes into further detail about a specific definition of “comic” and differentiates between writing and imagery as forms of visualization. There is also a difference between a cartoon and a comic, in which a comic uses cartoons to achieve meaning.
What I found interesting in the first chapter is that a comic, by its definition (juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence, intended to convey information and/or to produce an aesthetic response in the viewer) when paired with the fact that this definition does not rule out the use of any tools or means of creation, implies that any imagery in a deliberate sequence can be grouped into the category of “comic.” By these restrictions, or lack thereof, a series of sculptures, objects, people, things, etc. to be viewed in a particular order could be considered a comic. This is a new way of thinking for me.
Icons are images used to “represent concepts, ideas and philosophies…language, science and communication…[and] pictures: images designed to actually resemble their subjects” (McCloud 27). Non-pictorial icons are more objective while pictures are more subjective. Pictures have the capacity to render familiar things in abstract ways but still be identifiable with the original thing it is trying to represent. The more abstract, the easier it is to emphasize certain features of the image and the more relatable it is to more people. Because humans are a self-centered race, we see ourselves in many things purely by the arrangement of shapes on those things. The more non-specific a representation of a face is, the more likely we are to associate that image with ourselves and not anyone else’s. I started getting a little weirded out around the point where McCloud started theorizing that I am more aware of his message because the character he drew of himself was so very abstracted from his actual appearance. I felt this way because it’s true, and he has a point. I would have been more focused on the visuals of the comic rather than what it is trying to teach me.
The fact that we “extend our identities into inanimate objects” (McCloud 39) is so strange to think about. Why do we do this? This thought reminds me of some interactive media that I was exposed to while in Art 7D. We were shown an art piece involving two robotic heads speaking to one another. The heads had a very close likeness to actual humans, and this made them appear extremely creepy; So creepy that I was distracted by the conversations they were having (oh yeah, they were programmed to speak to one another). So, according to McCloud, if we shared less likeness with those inanimate heads, then I would be more open to their dialogue instead of being strangely put off by their creepy, life like appearance.
McCloud then discusses the different styles of comics that range from culture to culture, each of which shares a single vocabulary. Visual iconography strives to give people a role to play, not give them a goal to achieve. This method of visualization is more desirable.
No comments:
Post a Comment