Summaries of Chapter 2 of Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud
These are in no particular order.
From: joseph donhowe <tailspin72@gmail.com>
To: rose <rmarsha@ilstu.edu>
Cc:
Subject: SUMMARIZE COMICS
Date: Tue Aug 28 11:38:20 CDT 2007
Scott McCloud believes comic books are an incredibly powerful medium.
Because of their use of icons, he believes cartoonists have a more
meaningful creative distillation process as compared to artists of other
mediums. He also perceives 'our culture' as being 'enthralled' with the
simplified reality of cartoons. Cartoons, through there use of simplified
images and icons, have the power to connect to a wide audience (of nerds,
tee hee.) And after the connection is made, cartoons are actually found to
be a very deep and meaningful medium. Readers can't help but relate to
nondescript faces. In our ever increasing self-involved society it only
seems natural that a self-identifying medium would rise to popularity.
Becoming one with the comic is not a rare occurrence. He basically explains,
in a semi-stoner way, that cartoons are a cutting edge art form of the
future. I'm not sure if graphic novel was a term when he wrote this, but I'd
kinda love to hear him spout out some highfalutin word bubbles on that
topic. In that computers and websites are full of icons i can see how this
is a pertinent read.
As i was reading this i kept losing my flow because i either wasn't
following his line of reasoning or i disagreed with him. I'm not a fan of
comic books so many of his references were lost on me. Everything old is
new again. I find it to be incredible, that he thinks it's incredible that
our minds can perceive a circle with two dots and see a face in it. By the
way,the proper way to install an outlet is with the ground up. McCloud
would be utterly fascinated with neanderthal art. Humans have been
identifying with abstractions for tens of thousands of years. Art,
mountains, poop, no matter what the medium is, they all have the ability to
bring humans into the experience, to self-identify. Images can allow you to
feel directly connected or they can allow you to feel empathy for a separate
subject. It's even OK to connect with something without having any idea why.
Cartoons are a powerful medium, but I'm not enthralled with his take on
there place in our culture.
Someone had to write something like this. In the 1990s, and i may be wrong,
comic books were kinda reaching adolescence, and just like any teenager they
wanted to be taken more seriously. Icons on the other hand have been taken
seriously for thousands and thousands of years. I agree that icons are
powerful way to convey a message or meaning.
From: <mrnikki@ilstu.edu>
Date: Wed Aug 29 02:55:37 CDT 2007
Matt Nikkila
388
Summary of comics
It seems a little weird only after reading the comic that you begin to understand that “icons” are really around us all the time. However, I also have begun to feel as though we are programmed to see things, such as faces in art. One idea that I don’t agree with, is how the author took icon and broke it down into three definitions for the word icon.
I believe more in what we learned in 2d where icons traditionally viewed today are really broke into three different categories instead of three sub categories. The difference being: Icon, Index and Symbol. To me these meanings, broken down these ways make more sense.
The three different categories include, Icon; really is represented as a metaphor or a diagram or an algebraic equation. Index; signs indicating fever, smoke, a knock on the door representing someone there. Symbol; letters words or numbers, cross is the sign of Christ.
Broken down like these images can make more sense to me.
From: Webster, Judith Ann <jawebst@ilstu.edu>
To: Marshack Rosanne G <rmarsha@ilstu.edu>
Cc:
Subject: RE: Understanding Comics
Date: Tue Aug 28 11:43:07 CDT 2007
Attachments:
attachment0.htm
image001.gif
Understanding Comics, Chapter Two
Terminology. Perception. Imagery. Stylization. Connection. Identify. Abstraction. Simplification. Universal recognition. Face. Realism. Complexity. Icons. Comics.
The chapter begins with a word teaser. What is the image we are seeing? It is not a pipe. It is not a painting of a pipe. It is not a drawing of a painting of a pipe. It is a printed copy of a drawing of a painting of a pipe! With numerous visual examples & a bit of humor, McCloud (through his 'comic' self) starts his analysis of comic art with a primer on terminology, giving specific parameters to the use of 'icon' and its various sub-categories (conceptual, language, & pictorial). As he further details the difference between the categories, he branches into the area of perception - the how we interpret that which we see and that we understand.
Using multiple examples, the visual version of 'reading between the lines' & 'filling in the gaps' is explored. Specifically, this perception beyond seeing is examined as it relates to both the audience's sense of identity and the sense of connection to the visual image. How do we "see" ourselves & our environment? Why does a simplified image relate more personally to our self-perception then a detailed, photograph-like drawing? How can we as artists draw our audience's attention into our work?
McCloud's position is that by simplifying and abstracting the main image to its most basic design (the circle, 2 dots & a line), we strip away any 'disqualifying' (or distracting) features that would create a barrier between the artist/image and the audience. While realistic details increase the 'realness' of believability of the object, the lack of details does not diminish its acceptability as the actual object. The mind's eye & the subconscious work together to literately fill in the gaps & connect the dots where in actuality, no connections are present in the ink & paper. Much like the child's game of picture creating by "connecting the dots" - taking the simple, abstract dots and through a leap of faith, creating a picture - a complex image - were none existed before. Just like the astronomer and his picture of Poseidon in the night sky, or a devote Christian who sees Jesus in the color patterns on a slice of French toast or the hide of a cow.
He also examines the interplay of comic images with text; pointing to the movement to the center from the extremes of realistic imagery and basic text. A balancing act ensues between the increasingly simplifying visual image & the growing complexity of the dialog; balancing realistic information & perceptions of reality; between universally understood icons and language specific text. To illustrate the variation, McCloud uses a triangle diagram to show the range & evolution of the realistic drawing to the abstract design and simplified iconic images and words. By pulling together the concepts of realistic vs. simplified/abstracted images and the means to engage the audience (creating audience identification with the visual images), the artistic styles of several comic/cartoon artists is broken down & analyzed. Concluding comments are given to re-emphasis the growing use of, the universality, and the continued need for icons, symbols, and comic art.
This 'evolution' of the visual image via comics resounded with me as a choreographer & costumer. The literal movement, whether in pantomime or dance, can be pulled into an abstract gesture to the point that it no longer resembles the original movement. But, when composed & performed right, that abstract gesture still conveys the essential essences - spirit - emotion of that literal movement. That simplified, abstract movement or phrase communicates the emotion, personality, action, &/or object understandable to the audience without use of the spoken word or common language. One of the main exercises young choreographers are given is to take a mundane action, like opening a door & walking through, and break it down to the 'essences' of the movement. That essences is then to be manipulated into something else - bigger, smaller, in a different movement plane, with a different movement quality, etc. - while still retaining the feel or communication of that door being opened and walked through.
As McCloud was illustrating the realism to abstraction concept with the photograph & Smiley face, it reminded me of the way dance has evolved. The original movement from rural folk dances being stylized, simplified, abstracted into the clean lines of classical ballet and primitive movements of modern dance. Can you see the little bird perched on the tree branch in the PIQUÉ ('to perch')? Can you see the movement of the cat or the horse in the Pas du Chat {'step of the cat') or Pas du Chavel ('step of the horse')? Or feel the enormous throw in the Grand Jeté? Even the costuming has been stripped down to the minimum. Gone are the elaborate court dresses worn by the nobility as they danced those first ballets for the Queen of France. Hemlines rose; skirting became thinner; heavy garments of brocade & velvet turned into lighter satins & silks and later to knitted nylon & lycra; street shoes lost first their wooded heels, then their stiff satin or leather 'boxes' to finally being discarded altogether in favor of bare feet and just a basic, form-fitting leotard.
The whole concept of connection to the audience (making them feel part of the 'process') by simplifying the content to the essentials and adding 'punch' (details/realism) as needed reminds me also of the process of teaching - especially the little ones - . Start with the bare essentials (weight on left foot while the right foot stretches out to the side and is pulled back in), get them ingrained and then start to add the layers of details (head tilts away from the working leg, toes are pointed, knees straight but not locked, legs rotated, right arm circles laterally counterclockwise one full circle per 4 OUT/IN's of the right foot, etc.). As I choreograph dances for the young dancers, I use McCloud's concept of mixing the realistic/complex with the abstract/simplistic by using simple steps layered on top of themselves through staging, canons, ripple sequences &/or movement progressions to give the audience a visually complex moving image while the dancers actually are performing a series of simple steps and phrases.
The concepts he presents are very applicable not only to visual, two-dimensional art, but also to dance, to music, to three-dimensional art, to theatre design, and to literature - acting? - I don't think so.
Jude
From: Burnett, Dyryl <catsddburne@exchange.ilstu.edu>
To: <rmarsha@ilstu.edu>
Cc:
Subject: COMICS SUMMARIZE
Date: Tue Aug 28 11:54:35 CDT 2007
Attachments:
attachment0.htm
The collective thought and meaning of an icon
The images we see are not the actually product but rather an icon
representing that product, image, sound, person, or even symbol; which
in turn is the icon of such. "For the purpose of this chapter, I'm using
the word ICON to mean any image used to represent a person, place, thing
or idea." The term symbol is seen as a more complex icon that represents
concepts, ideas, and theories. Then they are also the icons that
represent language, science, and communication. Finally there are icons
representing or resembling pictures
Pictorial icons can vary on a very wide skill. Words can bring in an
abstract uniqueness or even the deletion of some realistic part of the
pictorial icon can trick the eye, while allowing the mind to think more
conscious into the picture. The abstract art are seen in the light as
the realistic art. As we simply the realistic art, we cartoon the
pictorial icon to its essential form.
Cartoons and comics are about of our daily life, but only in certain
places like the TV, newspaper, internet, or magazines. The fact that
amplification through simplification in cartooning which recreates
individual's ideas, thoughts, symbolisms, imagination, and vision is
amazing. Simply lines, dots, circles, boxes, and numbers allow the mind
to see or THINK they see a visual icon or picture. I like how it
illustrates us humans as being very self centered creatures because in
most pictorial icons we see ourselves. The abstract illusion make our
minds think we are seeing something that is not.
We identify ourselves, emotions, faces, feelings, and actions with
pictorial icons because of the iconic resemblance and abstract visual
connection, cognition, and effect. It's actually different to realize
such a thing is possible or relevant, but it really makes a person see
and think out of the box. It's funny how a simple view of shapes and
designs allow us to ASSUME there is an image or icon of us, a friend, an
animal, object, or even an action. Kind of cool!
Dyryl D. Burnett
Diversity Advocacy Grad. Assistant
Dean of Students
Illinois State University
dyryl@yahoo.com
Niemtschk Lori Anne <laniemt@ilstu.edu>
Date: Sun Aug 26 15:37:13 CDT 2007
After reading chapter two I immediately sent a copies to several friends. This reading would be helpful to anyone working in the arts.
"by stripping down an image to its essential 'meaning' an artist can amplify that meaning in a way realistic art can't"
This line of thought really struck a chord with me- it's been something I've been fighting to convey for the last two years. I fought very hard to continue making landscape art even when others advised that I needed to "push it further" in various abstract ways. But what was important to me was the emotions I needed to convey-- I've been building my images in new ways with new media to "amplify the meaning".
I think it is interesting, too, that through reading this I have a better understanding of why I am so fascinated by themed environments. I can remember being 7 years old in the White Rabbit's house at Disneyland, and how to me that shop felt "more real than real". That sense of creating a sense of wonder has always stuck with me.
Further on into the article things got a little muddy for me-- probably because I am less interested with bringing words and images together and about the various comic book illustrators and their particular styles and what that says about them and where they fall in the pyramid of style ------ I guess I was just being self-centered in the reading and only looking for what interested me, what I wanted to see in the cartoon pages. :)
Wesley Shinault 388 Assignment 1 (Understanding Comics)
Date: Fri Aug 24 22:36:51 CDT 2007
Understanding Comics
The Invisible Art
Understanding comics, seemed strip comics down to their bare essentials, symbols and icons, how they are perceived by the reader, and what the potential intent of the artist in using those symbols and icons was.
As a species, how we see ourselves in everything, and how in objects that have nothing to do with us, or our appearance, we find pieces of ourselves within. By making distinct features in characters few, the image can represent many. Or by creating characters distinctly, how they can show us how unlike us they are. Sometimes, mixing the distinct with the simple, readers are able to relate to the character, while entering a vivid world that they can not relate to, making them more at ease to explore this strange world.
Artists understand these concepts, and mix and match creations of symbols, distinct or simple, to invoke different reactions, or feelings within the readers, or to deliver a specific message or emotion to their audience. Many times making the readers active participants within the comics, creating our own realism based upon our own visions, and ideas.
When taking these images, drawings, symbols, and icons, and putting them in the pyramid (picture, reality, language), differentiating from the abstract, the realism, and the bare bones of text, and taking into account all of the images/icons that fall in between, you get a glimpse of the artists inner thoughts, or what he/she finds important in life, and art. Fine details, comics imitating life, abstract concepts where comics imitate art, or comics so simple that they represent ideas or concepts.
There are an infinite number of ways that your imagination can be steered, to make comics your individual masterpiece simply by reading them and interpreting the symbols, in the manner your mind fashions them.
I almost felt insulted at the beginning of the article when I thought the pipe was a pipe, and the character broke down piece by piece the different levels that the pipe had descended through to be a visual representation of a pipe. How we interpret symbols of things as the real thing, instead of ink on a page. The article helped me understand my though process, how items around us become extensions of us, I loved the example of a car, when our car is hit, how we are hit. With me, certain clothes I wear, I almost feel like I take on the persona of what the outfit I am wearing means to me, or music. How my attitude, and mind state can mold itself to what I am listening to. To push me into action, make me strive, make me cautious, and a number of emotions and mental interpretations. I feel like my visual interpretation has expanded by the message with the comic, and am thinking a little deeper on how my mind interprets other things in life.
From: <cggusta@ilstu.edu>
To: <rmarsha@ilstu.edu>
Cc:
Subject: comics summary
Date: Mon Aug 27 21:28:15 CDT 2007
Attachments:
Understanding_Comics.doc
In cartoons, simple lines can become iconic, subjective, and universal and have
great power but only if the readers mind allows it. When physical objects are
drawn they can either be represented in close resemblance or an abstract one.
They then become icons which symbolize a person, place, or idea which gives
them an appearance of life, sometimes demonstrated even in the simplest of
cartoons.
A reader will objectify these objects and give them physical definition such as
weight and texture. A persons mind is capable of taking a 2D image and giving
it that third dimension which gives these cartoons some sort of significant
life. When the reader interacts with such cartoons, their minds are extended
into the page which in turn creates a relationship between the cartoons and the
reader. An example of this interaction relation would be when a gamer uses
their own senses when interpreting a digital environment.
When cartooning is simplified to a basic core, the expressed emotion of the icon
is given without any other details that may dampen the original focus. When a
cartoon is in extreme detail, a reader has no relation to it, but when its
simplified to a standard face, the reader may see it as themselves. That is why
when we try to visualize our own facial emotions, we may only see a circle two
dots and a line or a very complex image with exaggerated detail. All of what
we see depends on our level of imagination and how well we want to define it in
ourselves or in something else. All of this can be considered non-visual
self-awareness and it can be applied to our whole body, not just our face. We
interact with environments and objects as if they are part of our bodies.
Life is a story. It can play out as experience, imagination, etc. Cartoons
inherit life when a story is tied to them and writers are responsible for this.
With the help of the writers, the readers can take relation to the comics and
can process something known as visual iconography. The cartoons take on their
role as a person, place or an idea and create a form of universal
communication.
Christopher Gustavson
: Allison Baker <artpainterallie@yahoo.com>
Subject: article summary and reflection
Date: Mon Aug 27 21:39:10 CDT 2007
Allison Baker
Overall, I found this article to be fascinating! The article mainly focused on the iconography of art; more specifically comics. Here’s some of the main points I got from it (and some of my own reflections):
Everywhere in the world around us there exist symbols that convey meaning and ideas, ways of communication, and objects in the physical world. One of the more common picture icons; people; are often drawn abstracted. Remarkably, we can recognize a face made up of two dots and a line just as easily as we might recognize a face in a real picture. We often identify more with “abstracted” or “cartoony” versions of characters, because, according to the author of this article, we often see ourselves that way. Instead of having a detailed picture of ourselves in our head, often the picture is sketchy, more cartoony… less detailed. How we see ourselves is different than how others see us. Also, as humans, we have a tendency to see ourselves in everything, even inanimate objects. We give “life” to the inanimate objects we use; such as clothing, cars, and even phones.
Everything that exists can be split into two “worlds,” the conceptual world, and the sensual world. The conceptual world is everything we can think and experience but is not part of our surroundings, while the sensual world is everything in our physical environment; or everything our senses can perceive. Language too is perceived (decoding the message requires knowledge), while pictures are received (understanding of the message is instantaneous, no knowledge required). Both a well-written story and accessible “iconic” art can be the ingredients for a perfect comic. After reading the article, I definitely gained a newfound appreciation for the art of comics.
The article explains to us that reality, language, and the picture plane are three “points” that make up a triangle that encompasses the entire “pictorial vocabulary” of visual art. Different artists have different areas on the triangle that they tend to prefer to work in, depending on what matters most to them: the beauty of art, the beauty of nature, or the beauty of ideas. Artists are not limited to one area; in fact the beauty of making art is the fact that you can explore all the different areas. There are no rules. This triangle was especially interesting to me because I felt like I learned a little more about myself as an artist. I had previously thought that I was more concerned about the beauty of simply art, but I learned that I tend to appreciate the beauty of nature more than anything.
From: chris campos <c.campos@insightbb.com>
To: <rmarsha@ilstu.edu>
Cc:
Subject:
Date: Thu Aug 23 08:49:07 CDT 2007
Attachments:
attachment0.htm
A summary of the UnderComics piece:
First of all, I never knew that the comic involved so much
information about the human psyche.
When I read that humans like to see themselves in things it struck
home. The part about seeing all parts of the auto and feeling like
you are the auto made sense to me.
Basically, if humans see a face in a simple shape when transcends
from a move complicated sketch do we do that with all information? We
see a line with a few limbs(lines) do we see a tree? Or is this just
pertain to the shape of a human face. To never see your face to smile
and have an image in your mind of what you look like when you talk to
someone face to face is interesting also. Basically, our mind is
filling in the blanks and constructing imagery before we see it or
after the fact. Like our mind has residual information that seeps out
when we need it.....or don't need it.
In summary, what I got out of this article is how powerful comics are
to relay information. The part about putting yourself in the comic by
the artist making the background more detailed but the figures less
stylized and more basic was an eye opener. I wondered how the Chinese
artists knew to try this concept and were they the first to do this
with comics? I also wondered if their heritage had anything to do
with this method of displaying and creating comics. Do Americans like
more realism in their comics? But, again this piece was not about
different countries and the comic artists, it was about the human
factor of visualization and how deep it runs to relay information in
a very powerful way. I also found it interesting how the words used
are relayed slower then the images.
Hope I got some concepts down on the UnderComics Piece.
Chris Bradford (Campos)
From: molly wells <mowells54@yahoo.com>
To: Marshack Rosanne G <rmarsha@ilstu.edu>
Cc:
Subject: summerize comics
Date: Mon Aug 27 23:36:07 CDT 2007
Molly Wells
8/27/07
Comic Summery
McCloud starts off by laying the groundwork for why
icons and symbols are different. He explains that
icons can represent much broader ideas, while
symbols tend to be loaded objects. Pictorial icons can
even be abstract, yet still clear to the viewer, which
is the motivation of cartoons. By stripping the
non-essential details, McCloud argues that we are
actually intensify the meaning, leaving only the most
descriptive pieces for the viewer to decipher. As a
result, cartoons are an effective way to convey ideas.
Going more in-depth about faces, McCloud even notes
that ironically, most of the time we cant see our own
faces. In turn, we tend to think of ourselves in the
same simplified manner. In fact, everything we
interact with is perceived in a simplified way, free
of detail and clutter. This simplification of images
may be a good thing however; the more generic the
image, the more each viewer can somehow relate, and
audience involvement increases. This is why cartoons
are so powerful. Although with outside influences,
styles have fluctuated over time, the idea that simple
drawings combined with complex elements can
successfully convey ideas always remain a constant.
McCloud also observes that since words and pictures
have a contradicting style (simplifying the language
increases how much the reader will have to work to
understand the message) the language should stay at a
constant. Yet, he end by stating that since each comic
has different needs and ideas, comics will always vary
somewhat. However, the role of icons in story telling
(especially cartoons) will always remain a crucial element.
From: Smith Christopher B <cbsmith@ilstu.edu>
Subject: SUMMARIZE COMICS
Date: Tue Aug 28 01:19:51 CDT 2007
Christopher B. Smith
388 Assignment #1
Understanding Comics Summary
Aug/28/2007
Chapter 2 of Understanding Comics by Scott McCloud was fascinating. He makes the point that culture tends to identify more easily with cartoon characters instead of their more realistic counterparts. McCloud states that we care more about what people or things say if we know less about them. In a way, cartoons are generic representations, or icons of real-life characters. Because cartoons are generic, and not realistically detailed, people find it easier to interact, acknowledge, or listen to them. In addition, we can more easily identify with icons because “we are a self-centered race” and by that, we see ourselves in objects. He gave examples of a drawing of a front of a car, a parmesan cheese canister top, and two dots with a line under them. All of these things are not animated, but we still pretend to see faces. As McCloud explained, “we assign identities and emotions where none exist.” We naturally feel more comfortable replacing the world with icons of our own image. His little face, two dots and a line, is a very interesting image. In reality, it is hard to see why anyone would want to consider that drawing an equivalent of a human face, but we all do. It seems only natural, but very strange at the same time. Knowing this, McCloud tries to make the point that less detailed objects, like cartoons, can be more universally accepted. He finishes the chapter by stating that new icons are being made everyday, and that comic book artists are always making new ones.
Subject: SUMMARIZE COMICS
Date: Tue Aug 28 10:03:50 CDT 2007
Christopher Lackey
Art 388.02 - Web 2.0
Understanding Comics - Chapter 2
------------------------------------------------------
The two main points I found most interesting were the comparisons
between realistic art and iconic representation, and between the many levels
of the linguistic. I had thought of how ever-more abstracted images tend to
make figures more "universal", and realistic ones more "specific", but I
hadn't taken the next step and thought "the more universal the image, the
more of myself I can see in it". Likewise, the range between visual
representation of language and language itself (and its large range of
specific to abstract) was also interesting - the more attention put into a
verbal description, the richer the understanding on one level, but the less
room for interpretation. Similar to the range between highly abstract poetry
and detailed narrative, there are an infinite number of possible "spaces"
for showing meaning and producing a resulting work, in linguistic as well as
artistic terms.
I found the breadth of possibility exciting and liberating. The
combination of words and image with a progression, even through static,
separated images or "time slices", provides so many ways to express ideas,
concepts, characters, stories, and more. My own severely limited visual art
experience (can you say "stick figures"?) relished the idea of being able to
express complex ideas without the need for substantial art practice or skill
and made me more comfortable with the idea of exploring iconic
representation in my own works and interfaces. While I don't foresee myself
pursuing a direction like comics, I certainly see a lot more there after
reading this, and am amazed at how much I understand on an intuitive,
automatic level when I read them - the representation, the language, all the
standard (and not-so-standard) means of showing emotion, action, storyline,
etc. It really is a means of bridging some language barriers and is highly
accessible.
I was hoping for some mention of my best-loved comic, "Bloom County".
In my mind this is the work of a real master, as it combines humor,
sophisticated concepts both philosophical and social, outstanding artistry,
a wealth of memorable and lovable characters, and a limitless world in which
these characters play out their lives. Truly exceptional - I hope that
anyone unfamiliar with this work go and pick up a book or two, it won't
disappoint!
--Chris
rom: Wilkerson Christopher Enoch <cewilke@ilstu.edu>
To: <rmarsha@ilstu.edu>
Cc:
Subject:
Date: Tue Aug 28 10:44:14 CDT 2007
Invisible Art
One of thing that was interesting in this writing was that symbols and concepts are used often in life as human reflection. The comparison with an actual picture (an artistic drawing) of a human and a symbol of a human is that symbols are something we are connected with on a daily basis of our lives; oppose to seeing a nice detailed drawing of a pedestrian sign on the street. This made me aware of how we communicate with symbols and the concepts behind them that make us understand what they convey.
A fascinating thing that I read was about how humans are attached to objects. The car example was one of them: how we are the car in our minds. Comics and cartoons are well represented as something that is attached to us with their detail. Comics have more detail than some cartoons; children want to be like them in reality and fantasy. The environments the character?s are in, their outfits and the overall concept of a comic or cartoon?its not reality. But then again it is from the human mind.
I know understand now how nothing has changed with pictorials in ancient caves to the symbols of Egyptian and Greek writings to the 21st Century of new and improve writing techniques, we are naturally connected to symbols, language, words and writing. The cool thing about artists is that we create so other humans can understand us, themselves and vice versa.