Monday, October 10, 2011

McCloud's Style

McCloud's "The Vocabulary of Comics" argument of stripping down an image to amplify the "meaning in a way that realistic art can't"(30) makes a good point in the universality of cartoon imagery, but I think it overlooks what realistic and exaggerated looking images can accomplish. He asks, "Would you have listened to me if I looked like this?"(36) as if the reader would doubt his credibility because of the realism. I don't think any reader would. Another point I would argue against is when he says realistic approaches function to "objectify them [the characters], emphasizing their "otherness" from the reader"(44) but to me, seeing more humanistic and realistic features makes me identify more with the character. When a character is more realistic, I identify more with that it looks more human. And when a character looks more human, there can be specific emotion shown, more so than on a "blank face". If an image is more exaggerated, it can comment on it's subject matter in ways even realistic ones cannot. It can show absurdity of the subject matter or even it's style. Take for example, FLCL, an anime that "goes manga" for some scenes. (Manga is the japanese word for comics.)




3 comments:

  1. I'm searching for the example in our texts of how dialogue is parodized. The author (I want to say it is Bakhtin at this point) says readers need the exaggeration so the illustrated characteristic will stand out in contrast to what's around it. This idea would support yours that "If an image is more exaggerated, it can comment on it's subject matter in ways even realistic ones cannot."

    Also, there's a reflexive quality-- "Would you have listened to me if I looked like this?"(36)-- that separates the cartoon from the reader's reality. I think a reflexive quality removes the character and so puts whatever qualities or traits the dialogue is focusing on in an even sharper focus.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Preston,

    Your link is a great example of how an over the top style can be used to exaggerate and express the craziness of a particular subject. McCloud even brings up the art of anime, calling it a "national style."

    However I'd like to draw on the differences of what you said between identifying with a character and defining one. See McCloud's argument is that through "abstraction" (his other term for cartooning) "we're not so much eliminating details as we are focusing on specific details" (30). You see this all the time in satirical cartoons such as the long running show, Family Guy, or South Park. Both of these series are created on the premise to poke fun at all realms of the cultural, social, economical, and political spectrum, even at an individual level.
    When they introduce particular "celebrity" characters, the character is then appropriately "family guy-ed," sporting only the most memorable attributes, such as racial stereotypes or specific clothing styles. Even Bill Clinton makes an appearance, acting as a lecherous drunk every time he's on the show.

    A realistic world does allow one to "identify" with the subject because the reader is accustomed to perceiving things in that view. But cartooning is totally different. Aside from identification, it's like showing half of a subject, and letting your mind fill in the rest. In cartoons, nothing that you see is there. The simpler it gets the more your mind must fill in what you believe.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The way I see it is this, if a more realistic image (in this case specifically human forms) is more objectified and thus more "other"ized, as McCloud states, that "otherness" just shows how the character is different from a reader. The more detailed a cartoon is the more he becomes unlike the reader in the reader. I don't understand how you could possibly relate more with something as it becomes more unlike yourself?

    The other point you make is specific emotions. But my idea of specific emotions within an image contrasts yours I think. When characters have specific emotions they become more fixed, more objectified; they become that one emotion (like how the detailed villains in manga comics are solely supposed to represent evil qualities). The "blank face" is relatable exactly because it contains no specific emotions, because it is not objectified but rather open to the reader's own subjectivity. When we aren't quite sure what the character's emotions are we have no choice but to guess, asserting our own emotions into that character, thus relating to them (I realize this is a large claim, but I believe it is backed up thoroughly by McCloud's argument). Likewise in writing, the more a character is described in words, the less one can place themselves within the character. Secondary characters are often objectified by authors just so the reader is forced to connect with the primary character, who is never specific about things.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.