Maria-Response to Understanding Comics chap.2

A TRANSCIPTION OF THE NOTES AND THOUGHTS OF MARIA ARENAS AS THEY TRANSPIRED WHILE READING CHAPTER 2 OF “UNDERSTANDING COMICS” BY SCOTT MCCLOUD IN (A VAGUELY) CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER.

This immediately brings me back to a 3,993 word paper I wrote in 2012 about Magritte and words and meaning

I have always been fascinated by words and images and how they can affect how either is read

Juxtapositions

The “read� [of a book] is affected by: - pace - sequencing - physical form [of book] e.g. paper stock (unexpectedly light 300 page book, unexpectedly heavy 50 page book)

PRACTICAL

CONCEPTUAL

“THE MEANINGS OF PICTORIAL ICONS ARE FIXED AND ABSOLUTE”

In “Sputnik Sweetheart”, Murakami distinguishes a sign from a symbol with the visual of arrows. A symbol: an arrow that points in one direction i.e. A = B. Sign: an arrow that points in two directions, i.e. A=B and B=A McCloud makes a lot of interesting and important distinctions that make clearer what the purpose of an image/ word which then allows you to judge how effectively it communicates what it strives to achieve Are they really? I mean the way meaning becomes “fixed” is through convention and social context. It’s in its nature to change over time. Words evolve over time, what makes icons different? Words are re-purposed and appropriated, used in contexts that they are not intended for - that’s how new meanings are created. Images are treated in the same way. It’s strange though how icons can hang sustain original meanings better than words can.

ELIMINATION

FOCUSING

“ AMPLIFICATION THROUGH SIMPLIFICATION”

“BY STRIPPING DOWN AN IMAGE TO ITS ESSENTIAL MEANING, AN ARTIST CAN AMPLIFY THAT MEANING IN A REALISTIC WAY THAT REALISTIC ART CAN’T”

I’m already interested in the reading but at this point, I’m getting even more interested. Explanations of how and why simplification and “stripping it down” works still grab me no matter how often I read it. Probably because I agree with most of it. Essentially they’re trying to explain the same things but it’s always interesting to see the different approaches.

I really really enjoy McCloud’s explanation. I’ve read similar spiels before but it felt like I was reading the content for the first time. It has a lot to do with the way he sequences and illustrates.

He “breaks the fourth wall” a lot and uses the form of a comic unexpectedly (granted, I haven’t read a lot of comics so I could be wrong here)

“ WE HUMANS ARE A SELF-CENTERED RACE, WE SEE OURSELVES IN EVERYTHING”

SUBJECTIVE

OBJECTIVE

We are hardwired to find meaning in/ make sense of practically everything

Unexpectedly philosophical and psychological when he gets into perception .

“ TOO AWARE OF THE MESSENGER TO FULLY RECEIVE THE MESSAGE”

Your mental image of yourself is a cartoon, others’ perception of you is a realistic painting. Which is why you relate to/can project yourself onto a cartoon vs imposing a character onto a realistic portrait.

Maybe this is why I’m so drawn to the seemingly “non-designed”, simple and straightforward approach to design (e.g. International Style). It’s design stripped to the essence, it’s unpretentious, but is it devoid of personality?

Does it have to have personality?

Devoid of the artist’s hand? Is a designer an artist? Does it matter if he/ she is or isn’t? How important is the stamp, so to speak, of a designer in his/ her design?

PERCEPTION

RECEPTION

CONCEPT

SENSES

TO SEE

TO BE

“I”

EVERYTHING ELSE

He verbalizes a lot of everyday “trivialities”. Brings awareness to how we perceive and receive information (M=messenger, R=receiver. M says A=B. For R to understand, R must know at least A or B) The further the departure from realistic depiction, the more it moves into the realm of concept. In terms of book design? Non-linear chronology. Odd sized books, unbound books, unreadable book, all but a rectangular stack of paper - so many options here How can I use this to effect ? A “realistic” approach would give my work a character per se (e.g. sequencing the NY book chronologically will be like a diary to witness) -straightforward.

A “cartoon” approach (distilling the information and taking it out of its realistic environment would make it harder to decode in that you will have to participate to decode it

SIMPLE STYLE DOES NOT EQUAL SIMPLE STORY

OMITTING AMBIGUITY AND COMPLEX CHARACTERIZATION

“ SIMPLE ELEMENTS CAN COMBINE IN COMPLEX WAYS AS ATOMS AND MOLECULES BECOME LIFE”

SIMPLE IS HARD. SIMPLE IS SUBTLE. SIMPLE IS HIDDEN. CAN SIMPLE BE SUBVERSIVE?

I agree with this statement wholeheartedly.

Reading this reaffirms/solidifies (?) my perspective on design. I’ve always believed deep down that if it’s not necessary then it’s just decoration and it shouldn’t be there. Inevitably, this conviction, almost always leads me to visually simple solutions with the bare minimum of visuals. It almost looks like I didn’t design it but most of the design happens in the process and then gets edited down to what goes to print.

It’s hard to stick to this conviction, especially while in school, because experimentation exists and is encouraged. It’s also probably the best use of time in school. I’m not against experimentation - I was but not anymore. My struggle is finding a happy medium where the experimental aspect is anchored (not quite the right word) by my tendencies towards the bare essentials. I can do the “it works” but I think I need to push it. Maybe I have to over-design before I can “undesign” better.

Just as the artist and writer need to be working hand in hand in order to achieve a symbiotic relationship within comic book panels, words and images need to work together in order to make sense.

Be aware of what you’re making. Be aware of who you’re making it for.

Where do I fall on the pyramid? I think I fall on the right. I think I’m comfortable on the right but I think I should experiment more

The idea of striving towards a form of universal communication kind of mirrors the metaphysical pursuit of having a one-all, end-all explanation to everyday phenomenons. Is it possible? Is it necessary? It’s obviously not the same thing, I’m not comparing communication and human existence here, It’s more about whether or not a universal language is an achievable or even appropriate goal? Does clear communication come from a singular understanding or from a confluence of different points of view?

END.