McCould's vocab

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.

The Vocabulary of Comics (McCloud)

Pipe. Painting of a pipe. Drawing of a painting of a pipe. Print copy of a drawing of a painting of a pipe. This is an interesting way to start talking about Comics, and it's true that things are not always what they seem. When we look at pictures there is no way of knowing the original source of the picture unless we made it ourselves. McCloud kicks off by discussing the definition of an Icon. Following this he comments on the way humans tend to see their face in such a thing as a plug socket. I was relieved to hear this, because I always thought I must be strange since I saw faces in wallpaper, painted walls, clouds, and a variety of other odd things. I enjoyed this reading assignment mostly because it was an easy reading in the form of a comic strip. What more could I ask for?

Rich Origins and Broad Horizons

In Understanding Comics McCloud explores the extensive and diverse history of the modern comic strip, as well as the current social perceptions of comic books. He attempts to change some biases against comic culture by validating the well-established style of "sequential art" throughout art history and the archeology thereof. My thoughts on this are very positive, because now my obsession with this artform is somewhat validated! :P Anyway, McClouds personality and abstract way of describing his points of interest were successful in reaching and interacting with my sporatic brain waves.. so, in short, "well done".

McCloud

Both of the pieces by McCloud were very insightful into the realm of the Graphic Novel. Unfortunately there were some drawn out parts that lead to either confusion or just plain boredom. Such as at the beginning of The Vocabulary of Comics when McCloud discusses how iconic graphic novels are. Even though all reading have a chance of having this dull section in them, McCloud does do very well at keeping your attention for the parts that really matter. The history of the comic is very intriguing and holds the readers attention throughout. Also, McCloud does very well here with going in-depth yet keeping the information elementary enough so that expert knowledge is not required. So...

In conclusion The Vocabulary of Comics and Understanding Comics were both very insightful with how a comic is drawn and the history/definition of the graphic novel.

Also a quick question.... can we respond to someone else's post and have that count as the required post for the blog?????

Vocabulary of Comics

McCloud is a strange fellow, but had some very good ideas. For instance, when McCloud talks about the face. There were thousands of ways to talk about how we see the face but he gave us visuals. One thing he said did remind me of something that I learned in general psych. Our mind is always putting things together and no matter how hard we try to unsee it, we can’t. I seriously tried to see just a circle, two dots, and a curve with that basic “face”. I will say that him being a strange fellow and me being a strange fellow I think I got a lot out of it. It wasn’t as cut and dry as I thought it would be with a title like The Vocabulary of Comics. My favorite part of all had to be the picture discussion. This isn’t a pipe, but it is, but is a picture, but it isn’t, but it’s a printing, but it isn’t. The scary thing is I thought I heard him describing this weird concept. Guess I better go get my ears checked…or my head examined. I also tried that drawing random curves then putting dots in them at random spots and yep I still saw faces or at least wear a head would be. Never knew a target could do all that. I also never knew that live action movies could be called cartoon. I only use it to describe things that are well animated and required voice over artist. Still as I was reading it didn’t feel like I was learning vocabulary for comics as much as I was learning concepts that comics tend to use. So back to my question is it really vocab? Or do we need just redefine vocabulary.

Understanding Comics

I really was on the fence with the understanding comics. I thought it was pretty good at the beginning but once McCloud got all insightful and got into the history of graphic novels it got really dull. I did like the argument with himself over the definition of the graphic novel. It was defiantly a good way to display different concepts about the graphic novel. Still no way to make history seem interesting. Although there was something that just bothered me. Why was the young McCloud so different in looks then the older McCloud? Oh and what was up with that Pre-Columbian “graphic novel”. Didn’t understand that either. All and all it wasn’t my favorite of the readings. I really had to struggle to get through it.

Vocabulary of Comics

After reading McCloud’s Understanding Comics comic, I thought it was insightful in displaying the vastness of what a comic might be. I was really confused when I first looked at pictures with captions saying that it is not what the picture shows. I realized that through the icons that McCloud presents, that pictures and words can have a variety of meanings in other people’s eyes and perspectives. I particularly found it interesting about how human beings see themselves in lifeless objects.