McCloud 1-3

McCloud attempts to explain the power of cartoons to connect with the reader in the craziest way possible (it all comes down to not being able to see our own faces??? 34-36). Its the type of thing that usually throws me in rhetoric or media theory. But he observes something very true about the effect different levels of abstraction have on what an image communicates. The magic of comics and cartoon images for me has always been in how they can capture vital and vibrant experiences, familiar human emotions, while deviating so far from imagery that tries to accurately imitate what the eyes see during those moments. What McCloud said about what the art calls attention to (p.37: "You would have been far too aware of the messenger to fully receive the message!") gets me to thinking that, by trending towards universality as opposed to representing reality, the cartoon style is positioned to turn faces into icons of anger, laughter, exasperation, etc. through representing the universal aspects of those emotions.

I think so many of us love Watterson's Calvin and Hobbes because he has a talent for bringing out what's essential about the experience within a scene. What icons are present here? Furrowed eye-brows, gritted teeth, all working in tandem with the icons of stuff that have been strewn about the flooded floor. I think the magic is in knowing exactly what is important to communicate. McCloud distinguishes between visuals that emphasize the without through realism and others that emphasize the within through abstraction (41).

Quick Sidebar: On 42 and 43, McCloud notes the tendency of some artists to draw abstract characters against realistic backgrounds to allow readers to "immerse themselves in a sensually stimulating world". I'd paste the image here, but its huge, so here's a link instead: http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/sleeping-beauty-disney-concept-art-6.jpg

Its one of Eyvind Earle's background paintings for Sleeping Beauty. The painting is lush with detail, but if you zoom in you'll notice that Earle opted to portray foliage with concise, often symmetrical lines that clearly differ from their real-world referents, even when viewed from a distance. I would argue it's very iconic. When I look at Kazuo Oga's stuff from Princess Mononoke, on the other hand, he goes way more in on creating a realistic effect, down to the leaves and blades of grass which look more natural. These films have very different feels in how they deal with landscape, and its just fun for me to think about how these kinds of choices make that happen.

That didn't turn out to be a quick sidebar. I want to close by remarking that both the iconic nature of the cartoon style, which invites us into the character, and the idea of closure remind me  of the concept of enthymeme, which we covered a few weeks ago in Public Rhetoric. In argument, enthymeme works by inviting the audience to construct the unstated premises or warrants of a speaker's argument. The audience participates in creating meaning. As McCloud says about closure, panel transitions often make the reader an accomplice in constructing meaning (68), and creators "regularly make assumptions about their reader's experiences"(85). A successful enthymetic (?) argument makes the same demands on the rhetor and audience. I would extend this idea of co-construction to icons as well, though the act of "filling in" may work by a different route.