I thought that McCould's readings were quiet interesting. The very idea of how to define a cartoon is just as hard as trying to define art. This whole notion that everything must fit into a category or else it doesn't exist drives me up the wall. Graphic novels all exist for different purposes and saying they must all contain the same basic qualities is preposterous. This reading reminded me of an artwork by Joseph Kosuth called One in Three Chairs. He put out a chair, took a picture of the chair and copied the dictionary definition of chair on the wall. Which one is a chair or can they all be? Life is sequential art and pictures could be considered still or even a cartoon. I think that graphic novels should be taken as face value and are meant to tell a story much like the Egyptians.
I wasn’t quiet sure what we were supposed to write about and I hope this was somewhere close to the topic.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
wow... you hit the nail on the head in my opinion!
I agree with Josh. Not much else I can add.
I have seen that peice by Jospeh Kosuth somewher before, and I think it is an excellent example to back up your point. I am kinda on the same page you are with this boxing things up. I mean I realize that it for the most part it is psychologically impossible for our mind not to catagorize things, unless we have an altered mental state ie. bipolar, extreme depression, mental retardation so on, our mind can still keep those catrgories broad-society or literary scholars don't need to go around putting things in more boxes, it'll just narrow or way of growth as a society or an individual. The more things get boxed the closer we will be come to one school of thought, and the vastness of graphci novels will be lost.
Post a Comment