The concept of imagery and icons is funny to me. As I began reading, I got more excited and relieved. I was looking forward to reading these chapters more so than the readings we have done in the past. Was it the pictures? Was it the large spacing and lack of traditional paragraph writing? Whatever it was, I found myself more ready to read this, and I think that’s a funny connection to be made with what McCloud is saying. He then asks the question I had been thinking thus far in the reading, that is, why is it we are more enthralled with this cartoon imagery? If we accept the definition of cartooning as a form “amplification through simplification” than I think cartooning and cable news have a lot more in common than we think.
When I first read the phrase “amplification through simplification”, I immediately thought of an interview between Jon Stewart and Chris Wallace I recently watched. Among other things, the debate between cable news channels (Fox v. CNN, for example) was discussed. Without going into too much background, Chris Wallace asks if Stewart could say the same things (negative, no doubt) that he does about Fox, about other mainstream media sources (ABC, NBC, NY Times, etc.). Wallace asked why couldn’t the New York Times and Washington Post ask their readers to read the 2000+ page Obama Health Care bill, when they asked their readers to go through Sarah Palin’s emails that were released.
“I think their [the New York Times and Washington Post] bias is based on sensationalism and laziness.” Now to me, these are synonyms (although possibly harsher ones) for amplification and simplification. But it brings to mind that news has gotten lazy. It’s gotten too simplistic. If the media is doing this for the benefit of the audience, aren’t they actually doing them a huge disservice? There is no way a reporter or a newspaper could read or copy the entire transcription of the Affordable Care Act. Or should the media have some accountability to do that? I’m not sure what the correct answer is, but certainly limiting media to sensationalism is not what news is or should be. Instead, news media is veering more toward entertainment.
You Can start watching at 2:30 to listen to them begin talking about media. Although the whole article is pretty entertaining.
Time is an interesting concept with comics. I have always notices how clear the progression of events in comics are, even though to me, quickly glancing at a page of a comic there looks like there is a lot going on. We don’t know the exact measurements of time and space moving along, yet we know, as our eyes are moving so is time. Usually.
In Chapter 6, I really like how he discusses the 1800s Western art. How art was becoming more “visible”, with color and texture, while text was becoming more abstract, more emotional, and more romantic. I have never though of writing and art is now becoming entities on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Cassidy,
ReplyDeleteIt's funny. I too felt some relief when I found that we were reading comics. I'm not sure why cause McCloud wrestles with concepts that are equally as mentally demanding as our previous readings, but I got a lot more enjoyment out of it. Pictures are stigmatized in our culture, and now I'm left wondering why. Is it because they imply a certain amount of laziness? If we consider McCloud's idea about pictures being received and words being perceived, it seems he affirms that in a way. Words demand work. One must learn a code in order to participate in the realm of words. Conversely, we can all readily participate in pictures. This gets me thinking about literacy, and how our stigmatization of pictures while glorifying words contributes to the social disparity for those who are illiterate. Could it be that setting up certain criteria (e.g. literacy) for participation in communication is a way of selecting for the more opportune, for the higher class individuals? It's almost like a perverse form of artificial selection, a subtle yet ever-present eugenics. Anyway, I decided in my response to Sadie that I wouldn't go into any conspiracy theory bullshit, but here I am filling your comment box with word-vomit. Have a nice night/day.
-Aaron
You said that "sensationalism and laziness" are synonyms (albeit a little harsh) for "amplification and simplification." In some cases, this might certainly be true. However, I'm wondering why simplification should be viewed as "laziness." From personal experience, I've discovered that when I'm well-acquainted with a subject, my writing about it becomes more succinct and "simple." Readers have an easier time understanding a simple paper rather than a dense, wordy article, right? Well, I think it's to a writer's credit if he/she can write a paper that is easily understood. I believe that it's almost harder, and definitely more time-consuming, to write a simple paper, especially if the paper introduces complex ideas. Consider the "Hyperbole and a Half" blog we looked at in class. The artwork looks pretty simple at first glance, but the artist carefully planned exactly how those drawings would end up.
ReplyDeleteClarity is the litmus test for the extent of a writer's knowledge about a certain topic. For example, grade-school teachers don't get "points" for awing their students with their "confusing," superior knowledge. Rather, common sense would dictate that a good teacher is one who is able to explain course material clearly to the students. However, you do make a good point: by striving for simplicity, are writers doing the readers a disservice? Which would be worse: good writing at the cost of bad reading, or good reading at the cost of bad writing?