One of the main points of discussion in our last class period pertained to why McCloud chose the term "icon" as his word of representation over a word like "symbol," and I think that given his entire explanation, it all makes a lot of sense. McCloud says that he uses the term icon as a broad definition of any "image used to represent a person, place, thing or idea (27)." He proceeds to explain why it is broader by dividing the icon into three more specific categories. The first are symbols, which represent concepts, ideas and philosophies, such as a country's flag or peace sign. The second are the icons of language, science, and communication, such as letters and numbers. The third and final category are the icons known as pictures, which are images that actually resemble what they stand for. All of these icons serve a purpose in the cultural and societal language.
McCloud then notes that "NON-pictorial icons meaning is FIXED and ABSOLUTE. Their appearance doesn't affect their meaning because they represent INVISIBLE IDEAS(28)" He then says that pictures' meaning are "fluid and variable (28)" based on how realistic they are. These are the differences of the icons, and this is why reading a comic on discourse was much more enjoyable that reading and trying to decipher pure text. By using pictures and non-pictures, McCloud is able to appeal to the "two realms" of life he discusses, "realm of the concept and the realm of the senses." Non-pictorial icons, developed by letters creating words, appeal to the conceptual realm, while the pictures appeal to the sensual realm, and help to better explain the concepts being set forth. It is a bit like the whole left brain, right brain concept, or the yin and yang. You try to achieve some sort of balance.
This is also demonstrated in "Persepolis." When talking about the revolution, one of the panels simply says, "and so went the revolution in my country," but then their is a picture of a five seated bicycle stacked with a mass of people to add on to the interpretation of the story the author is trying to present. Clearly, the revolution is going to be a mess.
I don't know if anyone would say that McCloud's theories were any less though provoking than the other theorists and authors that we have read, because it seems like are discussion in the last class was just as lively as any time before. I had never thought a comic book could be used to explain a theoretical discourse, but I have to say that this was the easiest of concepts to come to terms with, and I don't think it is any less interesting, but what do you guys think?
Josh, you hit the nail on the head (for me, anyway) in repeating why McCloud says he relies on *icon*, rather than symbol to spur the reader to participate in discourse, or to help critics notice the appearance of participatory discourse.
ReplyDeleteWhen I invited us all to think about McCloud's "iconicity" as functioning on some kind of sliding scale from most abstract (symbols) to most concrete/representative (pictures), I was thinking about precisely what you say above: that symbols, though they function conceptually, are more fixed in terms of the ideologies they carry; whereas pictures, though they function concretely, can vary in terms of their ability to elicit a sensual response from their viewers.
(Obviously, those pictures with lots of concrete detail are less iconic than those that are drawn more simplistically, so there is another smaller sliding scale even within the larger sliding scale.)
In some ways, this reflects semiotic theory (and there is a great short article on this in our Bedford Glossary). For one semiotician, Charles Peirce, signs could be classified into various typologies. One typology distinguished between "icon," "index," and "symbol," according to how closely the sign physically reflected the thing that it signified. Symbols were related to their signifieds only in an abstract sense by a habit or a rule (like a picture of a tree representing Mother Nature); Icons were related to their signifieds by a shared quality, or some causal relationship (like a picture of a tree representing the process of recycling); Indexes were related to their signifieds by a factual, often physical connection (like a picture of a tree indicating that there is a forest nearby).
On McCloud's sliding scale, I imagine the most detailed photographs would be indexical, and he favors the iconic relationship to its signified for some of the reasons you mention above. It may be that that kind of relationship between the sign and signified is the best one (the only one?) to invite the kind of participation McCloud values.
-Prof. Graban