One thing we can all agree upon, however, is the centrality of his theory of the icon to his idea of comics. How does McCloud use the term "icon"? How does it relate to the comparative imporance of the cartoon to comics?
Finally, what is the gutter in comics? How does it function, like more iconic/ abstract images in McCloud's estimation, to encourage reader participation? What is the concept of "closure" relative to the gutter?
Obviously, there's no need to engage with ALL of these questions, but try to weigh in on the three topics in some regard. Your first comments should be added by 8pm Thursday, but we can hopefully keep the conversation going for awhile! I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
McCloud’s definition of Comics as, “a juxtaposed pictorial and other images in a deliberate sequence,” is indeed a very broad definition. He attempts to include the small single panels that frequent the newspaper during the week, however his definition points more to the idea that Comics in general are plural in content and story, and therefore cannot be represented by a single panel with words and art. It is a very broad definition, but if it was to be more pointed and focused on what a comic is then there would be too much taken for granted. He leaves his definition open so that it can be discussed and improved upon by others(remember this was written approximately 25yrs ago), which in a sense isn’t that we’re attempting to do in this class, put our own definition on what is Comics? I would include some of the examples he uses, but I would probably add more well known, as well try to include some work by Artists/writers who wouldn’t necessarily be considered, such as Dr. Seuss’ editorials about World War II, which if you put them in an approximate order, could tell a story like many of the Comics we read.
ReplyDeleteMcCloud uses “icon” to represent how we read images. I see Mickey Mouse ears, I think Disney, automatically, because it’s an icon of a brand. Icons are images that help our brains translate information. Lines put in certain angles and directions create icons, like letters, which then our brains translate into words and sentences. The wind blowing through an opened window, represented in curtains moving in a picture or by curved lines pointing the direction of the breeze is an icon that we can easily read as an opened window in an image.
The “gutter” in comics is the blank space between panels. It can convey the reader over short distances, like walking up a sidewalk in one panel and walking in the door in the next, convey actions, or take readers over vast distances of time and space. It encourages readers to fill in the blanks that aren’t shown with their own imagination. Our brains fill in all the missing information using those gutters, it gives us the closure to continue on to the next thought.
I’m ecstatic that I’m not really sure where to begin….. There are so many thoughts and questions I asked as I read these first 3 chapters. I feel I need a recording device in my head to record my thoughts as I read so I don’t forget them later. But since that doesn’t exist, I’ll bring up the big ones I remembered while I was reading:
ReplyDelete1. McCloud definitely has some different points of view on how to classify comics. As I read his theories and definitions of different classifications of comics and visual arts, I reference back to my art history and design classes in school. That is what I am familiar with (not really comics). There are many other examples I could think of instead of the ones he used. The examples I would use McCloud may classify differently. For example, how does he classify triptychs, polyptych, quadriptych etc…usually found in cathedrals? These are all examples of visual images of scenes that are spaced with gutters; sometimes made of wood; and basically laid out just like comic books. Just because they are all individual paintings and have to be presented together to tell the story doesn’t mean they SHOULD be classified as comics. I’m siding with the art history teacher he refers to on page 19. Even though there are distinct features of visual icons/paintings etc. they all don’t need to be classified under the same umbrella. The dominant characteristics of a piece should classify what category it goes in. Comics are most commonly found in the form of print on paper. And paintings/stained glass windows are not usually found in the form of print on paper (due to material properties). That in itself should never classify them with comics. So I don’t want McCloud to classify them as the same thing either.
For reference of a polyptych reference link: http://www.painting-here.com/Uploadpic/Gaudenzio%20Ferrari/big/Polyptych.jpg
2. So I had huge thought on page 36. It is referencing cartoons (NOT comics). When he talks about how children are totally engaged in cartoons because they see themselves in the cartoons. How does the transition from child to adult change their self awareness? Some adults grow out of cartoons. I know I did. But what does it mean for those adults? Can they not see themselves in those basic forms anymore and think they are too complicated to realte to a simple cartoon. And for the people that like cartoons now as adults, does that mean they are able to see themselves as a “not so defined adult.” They can still be malleable and influenced by cartoons and others around them.
ReplyDelete- Then these same questions can be applied to comics. (which is where I bring up a new point) Based on statistics, what is the average age of people who read comics vs. people who read/watch cartoons? Are these same theories and questions of "adult hood” and “finding one’s self” a correlation with age or with personal experiences? I think I am verging on a more psychological approach as to who reads comics/cartoons and why. McCloud has made me think of new questions and theories. So, just a new theory to think about.
3. He references the difference between cartoonist, realist adventure artist and photo-realistic artist. It’s funny he discusses this topic since I have been contemplating where my style as an artist fits in. I tend to draw more photo-realistic and I think I have found my inner reasons why from reading this book. For me, if I’m drawing from a picture my brain doesn’t need to do extra work and think of how to simplify the object I’m drawing. I can simply just emulate what is in front of me onto another piece of paper (via pencil). If I’m trying to draw cartoons for work, for example, it’s much harder for me. My brain has to think of the key features to bring out in the object I’m drawing. I’m thinking of what “everyone” or “the majority of people" could relate to with each little cartoon. That is what I will emphasis on with each cartoon. It's taking the important step back and looking at the whole picture.
To cut it short, I will end my comment here. I feel I could write an essay on things McCloud made me realize. But I want to hear everyone else’s reactions!!
I share agreement with your first thought, I can see how it is possible for kids to see themselves in cartoons because of how they like to see themselves, or how they would like to become, like when we saw a beautiful princess, we wanted to be just like her, and when my brothers saw a power ranger or a hero in a movie, he wanted to be just like him. Now that we're older, I wonder, do people still see themselves in cartoons and different characters? That was an interesting point you made.
DeleteI don't think McCloud's definition of comics is TOO broad. I think if to read "juxtaposed pictorial and other images in a deliberate sequence" puts the image of comics in one's mind and there aren't really other things that could fit that definition. So it works. Comics are a hard thing to define just because the form has a wide scope, from news paper "funnies" to graphic novels. I think McCloud leaves the definition open just enough to encompass all of those things without excluding one and faulting the entire definition. I wouldn't necessarily include some of the examples he uses to show the history of comics, such as hieroglyphics, because I think the intention there was different. However, the Bayeux tapestry definitely fits the definition, although not necessarily fitting in with the comics we have today.
ReplyDeleteMcCloud uses the word icon to describe any "image used to represent a person, place, thing or idea," and notes that the word symbol is too loaded, because that definition sounds like it belongs to symbol as well. He distinguishes symbol from icon by calling symbols a category of icons, things such as a yin and yang, where an icon can be a yin and yang or an "!" mark. This is compared with the way we see the cartoon. Comics take a realistic human face and simplify it, making it iconic, a symbol of a human face. It is not two dots and a line within a circle but it still represents a human face to anyone who sees it.
The gutter in comics is the space between panels. It is where the stuff between panels happens, in a magical world called our imagination. It forces us to use the imagination to connect the images, and this participation makes the reading experience unique. Books require imagination of the scene they describe, but comic books require the reader to imagine the image not shown. The concept of closure is the reader taking the fragments of a full image, given to them in the comic, and piecing it all together to get the whole picture. The gutter acts as the glue for these fragmented pieces.
When I read this book the first time, I felt that McCloud's definition of comics was perfect, except for his exclusion of one panel comics, as in reading the book, it seems to me that Scott McCloud's own personal biases may be clouding his judgment on that. I never felt that his exclusion of singular panels was justified in that first introduction enough that I could believe it was a statement made out of anything but personal bias. As for my own opinion, I'd be willing to contest whether or not a singular panel is comics or not. I don't have an opinion on this.
ReplyDeleteIn my second reading of McCloud, I'm beginning to think that his definition may be too broad. His inclusion of almost all sequential art does not pin down the medium of "comics" enough, in my opinion. Do we then call a series of self-portraits comics, if they are put side by side in an exhibit? Do a series of paintings placed side by side qualify as comics? While I do not believe it's necessary to have words included in order for something to be qualified as comics, I think it's a mistake to include any kind of and every form of sequential art (of course, McCloud does not include animation, and that I agree with).
This idea ties into the idea of the icon, which McCloud explores quite a bit, and I think is absolutely indispensable in comics. I don't have much more to add to this, so I will wait until I see more comments to continue on my side of the discussion.
I can agree with most of the comments so far- I do not think that McCloud's definition of comics is too broad. On the first couple of pages, he includes panels that show how people react with either laughter or indignation towards comic books. Moreover, they are not taken seriously by many people at all. I believe that this is why his definition is left so open, to make the point that works of art that may seem to be clearly not comics, actually are. In response to Katie's question, “Do we then call a series of self portraits comics, if they are placed side by side in an exhibit?” I think that this would fit McCloud's definition of comics. Each painting, or frame, would show the same subject moving through time. This project would probably would fall into McCloud's category of moment to moment transition, although depending on the artist it could also be aspect to aspect.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite points raised by McCloud is the importance of icons, and how our brains refuse to see anything but a face in some simple drawings. The idea makes a lot of sense, and it really made me think about myself and some of the things that I relate to. I loved the point he makes when he says “When you look at a photo or realistic drawing of a face- you see it as the face of another. But when you enter the world of cartoon- you see yourself” (36). This is hugely important when talking about comics, because most comics have their own unique art style. The characters of different comic universes all represent different aspects of our very real human selves.
McCloud says about the gutter- “To kill a man between panels is to condemn him to a thousand deaths” (69). This point was very interesting to me, and it raises a great point about the unique qualities of the comics genre. If the author were to illustrate the moment that the axe kills the man, he would only have one death. There is no imagination in that route, only gore. The imagination is when the killing is not shown, then as McCloud says, the reader has to participate in the murder, to hold the axe and choose their spot (68). No other genre gives the reader that level of imagination stimulation.
I definitely agree with your point that McCloud is trying to get people to try and take comics more seriously. I do think that comics are often dismissed without a complete understanding - and I thought it was funny that McCloud did not initially like comics.
DeleteThat quote from p. 69 is great as well. This ability to engage readers in an interactive way really seems to be unique to comics. I also think it's so successful because the reader connects the two images, perhaps without even being fully aware of having done so, in the time it takes to reach the next panel. It would be really interesting to see how much readers' viewpoints differ on what occurs in the gutter between two panels.
I actually prefer McCloud's simpler definition over the more detailed one that he provides. The broadness of the definition that he uses allows the name "comics" to encapsulate a much larger grouping of art pieces. A limiting eye makes the point more difficult to see. To me, a comic is a sequence of pictures that tells a story, so the Egyptian tomb paintings and the like do represent an earlier version of the comics we read today.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of Icons, McCloud uses the term to describe a representative of a real thing. (on a side note, he used my favorite painting as an example for this, so double points.) He says that they are important to us as the reader, in that cartoons serve as icons that we can relate to within the work. This lets us more readily accept ideas presented by the author. While I can't agree totally with his statement, I can agree that within some stories, the simpler characters do tend to allow a certain identification that more complicated characters do not.
The Gutter is the blank space between panels. It serves as a pathway for the reader's imagination to provide action. Closure is the tendency of our minds to complete an otherwise incomplete sequence. Artists use the readers sense of closure to complete the story between panels. In this way, he says, we are as much a part of the creation of the story as the artist is.
McCloud defines comics as "A juxtaposed pictorial and other images in a deliberate sequence." In the book, he gradually changed the original definition given to this more specific one yet still very broad. His definition is exactly how you would define a comic. Images being sewn together into something with meaning and being presented as a story. His definition leads to comparing historical art to modern day comics. He compares a Picture Manuscript from 1519 to modern day comics. With these comparisons to modern day pieces, he comments on those artists by saying their comics lack a specific style. Modern day comic artists stay within the borders of the comic and seem to lack the overall possibility of using a comic to it's full potential. His look into the past gives him a direction that modern comic art should go in. These pieces of art left to the world by ancient civilizations are clearing being presented as comics, yet before reading this book, my idea of comics was much more slim. I would of never categorized these as comics before, but looking deeper into their style, I can tell why they are so similar. They each present a story in a similar fashion, but there are clearly differences in presentation. This difference in form and style is what makes comics so interesting. Each artist has his or her own style of design and presentation that they use in their comics and ancient tomb wall art is no different. A story is being told the way the artist depicts history and legend.
ReplyDeleteMcCloud uses Icons as something each one of us as humans recognize in one way or another. Two dots and a curved line become a human face but lacks so little detail to come at all close to a real one. We look at something with such whimsy that the least complex things become things we as humans take as representations of the life we live. Cartoons can be so simple because our human minds choose to add our own personal feelings into these characters or symbols. McCloud references the symbol of Mickey Mouse, which is the most recognizable symbol in the world. Disney has spread throughout our world and becomes the dream destination of the young and even the old. The icon of Mickey mouse is so recognizable that 3 circles together instantly brings us to this famous mouse’s face. The use of symbols has been around since the beginning of the human civilization. Egyptians used hieroglyphics that looked like simple objects but can mean so many different things. They tell stories with symbols as a form of language, but it doesn't make it a comic. The gradual evolution of iconic symbols is what our pop culture is made of and these symbols let us understand things that lack understanding or simply bring fourth feelings of the past that change our feelings of a specific piece or work. McCloud compares Icons to cartoons. Cartoons become a stripped down version of what we see in our world today. A complex human face gets concentrated in a simple line and textured face putting focus on certain features over others letting our own imaginations fill in the blanks. Artists use cartoons to shed detail and focus on important ideas while comics do the same by keeping the detail.
Part 2: The gutter in comics is the place between the panels where our imaginations fill in the blanks. It moves the story along quickly and connects the images into a single idea. We may have 2 completely different pictures, but with the gutter, you can show a story. Comics have a closure that films and cartoons do not have. McCloud describes as our imagination putting an end to what the story is presenting. We follow the story so closely that we each have somewhat of a different direction that our minds go in when reading a comic. We choose the specifics of what happens between scenes and this closure of story leaves the reader with the power. The story may have a set direction, but our personal closure in a story is vastly more important than any closure in an animated feature or scenes that are moment to moment. We as readers, close the panels into a streamline piece. We transform the story from one singular even to the next.
ReplyDeleteThere is so much more to comics then I had thought before. I've been reading them for a while, but this book is giving me ideas that I never thought of before. I can't wait to see what else the book goes on to explain.
I think we see such a broad definition for comics simply because of a strong desire to be more inclusive than exclusive. Comics in general are a medium and not a genre and some of our reservations with this open definition may stem from our expectations of the comics read through the genres of comics we have experience with.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I feel some reservations about the absence of any kind of reference to story telling or narrative in his definition. I suppose "in sequence" implies a sort of cause and effect but it feels more coincidental or secondary to what comics are in and of themselves. What this wording does to me is place comics more in the visual arts spectrum than the literary domain, but that feels a bit off to me, especially considering that you find comics typically bound and sold as books in print rather than hanging in a gallery.
And that's why I feel like classing a cathedral stain glass window as a comic is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps they are comic-like (used as a adjective) rather than literally a comic (used as a noun.) I feel like there should be some sort of intent that makes a comic a comic-- I think excluding this is too inclusive on coincidental sequential art.
An icon to McCloud is "any image used to represent a person, place, thing, or idea." When we see an arrangement of two dots and a curved line inside of a circle, we fill in the missing parts taking the form as a face, even though the abstracted, generalized image looks little like any face embodied. These lines become a representation of a human figure or character and thus an icon.
This use of the icon in comics creates a phenomenon called "amplification through simplification" in which the hyper simplified cartoon is registered in the brain almost symbolically as words are. In effect the image is stripped to its most essential meaning, amplifying it. This simplified visual form too allows for greater viewer identification. The cartoon (especially for children) becomes a blank slate on which the spectator projects themselves, feeling heavily involved and invested in the fictional space.
Finally, the gutter is basically the panel space-- an in world jump in time and or space that occurs in the space between two images. The concept of closure that McCloud writes on tells us that the brain, knowing the images are related and likely in sequence fill in the gaps as to what happens between the scenes shown forming a continuous whole out of the fragmented parts.
The gutter is a feature unique to comics as a medium and can be utilized artfully to great aesthetic or narrative effect.
McCloud's definition of comics is quite broad to say the least; "a juxtaposed pictorial and other images in a deliberate sequence". Though it is broad, it is not too broad in the sense that it explains exactly what comics are made up of. I think that the die-hard comic fans would say that McCloud's definition is too broad, there are far too many elements in comics to summarize it with one sentence.
ReplyDeleteI think he leaves the definition open to challenge people to truly think about all of aspects of the answer. Comic books are such difficult things to understand in the American culture for some reason. Whether it's because of the instant connection with cartoon's that is made, and trying to decipher what is considered art and fine literature.
Yes, the comics that have been created are iconic. McCloud uses the word "icon" as "any image that used to represent a person, place, thing, or idea." Captain America was created not only as a mascot to represent America, but he also is supposed to represent the strong war-force that America possess. Both cartoons and Comics can be iconic as well, I see anything Iconic as something that survives and is relevant throughout the generations.
The gutter is all of the white space that is seen in between the comic boxes. The concept of closure says that our brain will already try to add a sequential order to the comic panels.
Scott McCloud defines comics as juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence, intended to convey information and/or to produce an aesthetic response in the viewer. I do not think that his definition is too broad, because comic books are the medium and not the genre. From here, comics can be sorted into different categories based on factors such as their style and content. I believe he leaves his definition so open because there is a huge variety of comics and it is difficult to find more of a common thread between all of them.
ReplyDeleteMcCloud defines icons as images that represent something else, whether that be a person, place, thing or idea. He states 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 concept is important to comics because not only does it allow the meaning of images to be amplified, but it also allows the viewer or reader to project themselves into the cartoon or comics, immersing themselves in it in a way that allows them to experience it more fully.
In comics, the gutter is the space between panels. By having this space between the individual panels, the comic reader must use his or her imagination to link the two panels together into a single idea. This encourages an interactive reading experience. I believe most people do this subconsciously while reading comics, but it really helps connect the images. This gives the reader closure, because it allows the reader to see the separated images as one continuous reality.
'A juxtaposed pictorial and other images in a deliberate sequence.' This definition is correct when attempting to encompass all of sequential art historically leading up to and including the current diverse array of comics.
ReplyDeleteThe historical examples, provided by McCloud, fall under his universal definition. I believe that the history of art as iconic sequence goes as far back as many of the earliest cave paintings. In this way art began in a way that allowed it to fit many definitions invented later for more particular and newer explorations, movements, theories, and techniques.
More basically sound and valid working definitions for a form of art will allow discussion of the work to grow and develop. Until such a working definition exists, there can be no objective measure of one comic's relative success compared to another, This makes it difficult to find the exact evolution of comics into their varying styles, qualities, and content.
When the vocabulary of comics has been generally established and agreed upon between a majority of its readers and creators, it will allow for new applications of the medium through context. This happened once with the pop art movement, but that was only the beginning. When comics are more well defined and easily discussed, as other forms of art that have enjoyed popularity for centuries more, they will become an appropriate medium to be found in both historical as well as contemporary art exhibitions and galleries.
The many uses and applications of icons in comic books, from letters to the pyramid of representation and abstraction, create a form of language that can sometimes improve upon either kind of icon used exclusively. Icons and symbols when combined have this power to communicate multiple and unique meanings at once. McCloud's observations about the iconic simplicity of cartoons and their universal appeal and effectiveness in aiding suspension of disbelief makes sense. This idea of simplification creating a more powerful impact on the reader is interesting.
I think that the closure process of the reader may be comparable to the use of music in film to connect two or more scenes, aspects, actions, or juxtaposed concepts. There is a resolution that happens within us that creates an emotional notation which although relatively different for each of us, still carries the climactic movement of the rest of the comic that does not exist within the 'gutter'.
I absolutely do not view McCloud's definition of comics to be too broad. It's absolutely intentional and its effective in its broadness. Comics, being a medium, are open to change, restructuring, interpretation, and deconstruction. It would be limiting to hold down the medium with specificity.
ReplyDeleteI find it very interesting that icons are used to simplify the way we interpret a story; like using simplistic images of people allow us to create meaning rather than the creator spoon feeding it to us.
The gutter is the white space between comic panels. This creates separation and connectivity. It causes the reader to "fill in the blanks", to move with the story.
I definitely agree with your point that making the definition of comics more narrow would be limiting. I have always thought of comics as typical print books, but it was really interesting how McCloud talked about ancient compositions and how they fit into his definition of comics, as well as where this medium has the potential to go in the future. I also think it's also important to define comics this way so they can be acknowledged in their own right. If this is accepted as an accurate definition of comics, then many works would logically have to be categorized in this way and that may help remove some of the stigma associated with comics.
DeleteI feel most of my colleagues make a very valid point, and McCloud's definition can be interpreted in many different ways. In his opening, he wanted people to know exactly what comics were, beyond the actual icons and what people usually associate when hearing the term comics.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't aware what the point of the gutter was until reading through my colleagues comments, that's very interesting, I never thought they served a real purpose.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think McCloud's definition of comics, and the pitcher he uses to explain the difference between medium and message, are apt, and they resonated with me. I think it plays in to many other debates -- such as the difference between "high" and "low" fiction -- and I do not think that his definition is too broad at all. I do think that trying to determine what exactly counts as "comics" is pointless artistically, as the discussion is often meant to invalidate a piece of art most of the time, but I think McCloud does the best and most fair job that I've seen. The medium needs to be taken more seriously, and McCloud's definition is a step in the right direction of dismantling the stigma associated with them.
ReplyDeleteThe gutter seems rhythmic and poetic to me. Other visual mediums have the benefit of being controlled by the presenter, whilst comics are controlled by the viewer. The "gutter" helps manage, in a small way, the reader's pace and perception.
Another thing this made me think:
DeleteWhat's the point of trying to define these mediums? I see the point in that it helps direct people to things that they would enjoy, but I don't think it does anything more than that. Calling something a "comic" vs a "graphic novel" does nothing. It doesn't magically change the content of the work. And I honestly don't believe it's something that should be given much thought by people who care about artistic expression.
There's no point in particular from McCloud's work I am critiquing here, this is, rather, just where the train of thought he put me on led me.
I think I’d actually differ in thought here; I think it’s really important to define mediums, because I think mediums have a huge bearing on the meaning in a work. It’s a pretty unfair analogy, but it’s almost like trying to treat an illness you don’t know the name of. Until you really know where to house the class of symptoms, you’re kind of flailing about treating individual symptoms as you know them through other conditions.
DeleteThe comic is its own medium and hosts its own aesthetic and methodology. We’ve learned more about this in the later chapters, but if we were to try to interpret the illustrations as we would any piece of fine art (or as cinema or photography for example) or neglect the art and interpret comics solely as literature (e.g. the narrative) I think we could be leaving out a great deal of meaning that the classification of “comics” affords us. That’s not to say that any of those interpretations wouldn’t be valid—just that they’d be missing something.
Writers also write with the knowledge of constraints of the medium they are using, and this has a bearing on the final product. Like McCloud says, the risk of not defining comics as a medium leaves them in danger of being disregarded and belittled.
That being said, I think it is a bit unnecessary to sit around trying to say that a frieze or the Ghent altarpiece like is really a comic denying its form mainly because of what Jessica A. above wrote, "Even though there are distinct features of visual icons/paintings etc. they all don’t need to be classified under the same umbrella. The dominant characteristics of a piece should classify what category it goes in."
I think classing it as a comic is not a useful classification for meaning; interpreting it as a painting alongside very similar styles of painting of its era seems more appropriate.
McCloud's definition is purposefully broad and purposely comprised of thorough, weighted words that hold down Comics as a distinct concept but these words do not smother Comics into any definition that is immovable. McCould acknowledges he's one of the first to talk about Comics like this and throughout these first few chapters he is encouraging of all those who disagree with his words to writing a book disproving him. Above educating the general public on Comic Art, he is hoping to start a discourse — like all great media has concerning there own in's and out's, genius and implications.
ReplyDeleteMcCloud uses icon similarly to an Avatar, or a representation of ourselves or our worldly "things" in the form of a drawing. They are our hieroglyphic language, they are underutilized, as McCloud suggests, in everyday life, but celebrated as the skeleton of Comics.
The gutter is where the "juxtaposition" is emphasized in Comics. It's eloquently placed white space meant to show a passing of time — even if it is an instant or a millennia. The gutter is a poets line break, a cesura of comic breath — a beat.
I found myself enjoying the presentation and organization that McCloud uses in Understanding Comics. It brings to mind the idea of “walking the walk” while “talking the talk,” where McCloud doesn’t just describe how comics work; he physically shows us. To handle what is still a fresh medium with such confidence and mastery demonstrates just how qualified McCloud is as a guide to the world of comics.
DeleteI find that McCloud’s definition of comics is quite effective, not despite its broad nature, but because of it. Any kind of medium is going to present itself in multiple ways, not all of which seem immediately relatable. Just as the Bayeux tapestry may be a far cry from Transmetropolitan, and zoetropes may have little in common with Wall-E, the latter two are still animations, while the former two are still comics. What makes this kind of definition so satisfying is how straightforward it is; there aren’t any exceptions to its rules, and more than likely there never will be. I imagine that a more specific or meticulous definition of comics would ultimately complicate our understanding of the medium, and make it harder to categorize or even recognize future additions to it. McCloud’s definition has everything it needs, and not a single word (or icon) more.
ReplyDeleteChapter two of McCloud’s text provides a clear insight into the relationship between written communication, both pictorial and verbal, and meaning. McCloud's concept of icons, the idea of something visually representing another thing, rings true not just in the context of comic books, but in any situation concerned with communication. By tying the idea of icons in general with the idea that "the map is not the territory" he helps bring to light the subconscious processing that goes on whenever we look at a medium such as comics. I may not completely agree with the dichotomy between written and visual art he presents, and while frankly I find his idea of "art object" rather forced, he still does a great job explaining the connection between objects and their representation with icons.
"Understanding Comics" does an excellent job of identifying the defining characteristics of comics, as well as explaining the influence they have on the singular experience of reading comics. Having grown up with the gutter as the standard comic book format, I usually find myself enjoying comics that are willing to play with this convention, similar to how readily McCloud's avatar breaks away from the panels. Characters recognizing the confines of their medium, breaking them, even providing criticism on it: to me this self-awareness fit well with the tone of most comics, where "playing in the gutter" worked as a part of the comic experience. But as McCloud brings up the idea of audience engagement this way, I think that this structure, as well as its deconstruction, brings a lot more to the table than simple tongue-in-cheek foolery. Comics are powerful in that, in a sense, they expect more from their audience than most other media. With readers having to provide their own closure between each panel, and with the flexibility that a comic artist is afforded with and within the gutter, the audience is well rewarded for the energy and creativity they invest in the experience.
Great points about the inclusivity of McCloud's definition, as well as the importance of audience participation via the gutter and icon. I am excited for you to use this vocabulary as we continue to explore both Understanding Comics and the texts we'll read in class.
ReplyDeleteMcCloud defines comics as juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence, intended to convey information and/or to produce an aesthetic response in the viewer. (pg. 9) This definition is intentionally broad to allow for every happenstance of comics to fit within the spectrum presented. If we look at the definition of other mediums like film or music, we will see similarly non-specific descriptions. His view of ancient picture manuscript as comics is really interesting, and does indeed fit within his definition of what constitutes a comic. Egyptian Hieroglyphics would be defined as an alphabet, but the Pre-Colombian picture manuscript tells a story. I am glad he does define this difference. An Icon is a picture used to represent a person, place, thing or idea. (pg, 27) When describing icons in cartoons he uses the phrase amplification through simplification. The idea of how our minds will allow us, force us to see a face out of two dots a line and a circle allows us to understand how the viewers can become attached to cartoons. Comics also use this simplification to allow the readers to become absorbed into the story. This trend can be seen in comics around the world, in Europe it is exemplified in the adventures of Tin Tin, in Japanese comics the masking effect is found in a national style. I found this point really interesting since I like to read Japanese comics.
ReplyDeleteIn comics the blank space between panels is called the gutter. The can be used in many different ways. It controls the pace in which the story travels. It can alter the readers perception, and the lack of a gutter in a page of a comic can be a powerful tool. Filling an entire page with a single panel helps to solidify the emotion the author wants to convey. The gutter can be manipulated as well. By adding effects of breaking or changing the style of border draws emphasis.
The first chapter sums up nicely why comics as a medium gets confused for something unrefined or childish. Never mistake the message for the messenger. (pg, 6) Or perhaps on as said on page 37 in a different context being far too concerned with the messenger to receive the message. This is the reason McCloud takes such a broad stance as to what defines comics. Due to social associations with the word comic anything without obvious stark contrast to classics will be thrown out like a baby in bathwater.
ReplyDeleteMcCloud uses his idea of icons to explain that in cartooning the art that goes unseen leaves the mind able to explore the blank space. "By stripping down an image to its
'essential meaning,' an artist can amplify that meaning in a way that realistic art can't." (pg, 30) He believes that icons connect us to other experiences and make art more appealing and personal than could ever be accomplished in anything but a minimalistic approach.
The gutter in comics as described by McCloud is time for us to think, time for our thoughts to race and depict within our own minds how the events play out. While it holds no time in itself it gives a perception of time passed. These moments are made complete by closure, or in some cases a surprise or shift in closure, found in twists.
(Late, late, post!)
ReplyDeleteWell, of course it's doing to be broad, a comic can range from a picture to picture sequence telling a story, or it could be in an almost cinematic sequence of pictures where the story is more defined. What McCloud shows in the book itself is, by his definition, a comic. Was is considered a sequential art way back when? Hell no. It was used to history or a story book, but hey, that's what a comic is. A story. By the definition given (juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence intended to convey information and/or to produce an aesthetic response in the viewer) we can assume that a lot of things in our life and that we see in books (photo booth pictures, tapestries, ect.)could be seen as a comic. And it's not wrong, not by a long shot!
McCloud uses the word "icon" as anything that is a symbol for an idea. He leads with this in chapter two and uses it to explain why people see a drawn "person" as a person (the WalMart smiley, Bart Simpson, symbols that don't necessarily look "human"). There was a lot he said, and in greater detail, but the just was, we see ourselves in that bit of realism that was left out. They less realism, the more we fit ourselves into the character. This is because we have a basic idea of how the cartoon should look. Based on his pyramid chart, if the drawing is realistic, most likely the comic is focusing around the beauty of nature. If its heading toward the top, it's getting more abstract, and focussing on the art. But if the detail is becoming more and more stopped, the comic is based around having more of an idea to share than a character or opinion.
The gutter is the white space between panels in a comic. Those panels offer a moment of closure. Those spaces offer to the reader a sense that time is passing in the comic at interval (big gutter=long pause, little gutter-little pause). The gutter space it used to give readers time to get closure, process twists, or prepare themselves for a sudden action.
It's interesting that you (directed at everyone who agrees) find McCloud's definition of comics broad at all. I find his definition to be pretty spot on. So specific in fact that it even cuts out common "comic strips" we'd think as comics before like the far side and family circus. Which took me a while to accept by the way but I do now since a single image with text cannot possibly be a comic unless any combination of single image with text was as well, as in a menu, internet meme, text message... If you find this definition too broad don't pay attention to his incomprehensibly broad (but still fantastic) definition of art in general! McCloud is a thinker, and even great comic minds like Alan Moore look up to him with awe. he wants us to use this broad definition to show us what exactly is the core essentials to keep something as a comic so that when it comes to experiment with the medium and go forward with it, we are able to explore the nooks and crannies in these words that we didn't realize would fit together before. Read his Zot! to get a glimpse at his work in experimenting with comics.
ReplyDeleteOh yes does McCloud understand how the mind wants to see itself. in his Zot! he oversimplified his main characters to allow them to be more relateable to the reader, while his villains were very detailed and different from us. The cartooned icon is what allows the artist the ability to communicate with us through a language of images. Our minds understand ourselves very well, so we can easily plant ourselves inside of someone else who isn't well defined in a comic, so we fill in those missing gaps in their life and they can become our own without us realizing it.
The gutter (which I and my fellow creators call the grout) is probably the coolest part about comics. You can tell if a creator understands comics or not by how they treat that gap between the panels. If they don't respect it or treat it like the transitional gap between moments in time and space that it is, then the reader can't follow the jumps between panels at all. I recently read Biomega 3, in which I honestly can't tell you a single thing that happened since the artist started forgetting how to tell stories by using that empty space to fill in the complicated actions. All the sudden in this volume things got fuzzy, and images were hard to make out and relate to one another. The gutter (grout) is what broke that volume. It's the importance of closure that the reader needs to progress through your story. Not pretty images and words. It's all about the grout.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete