Having read Art Spiegelman’s Maus several years ago, I was intrigued to read Scott McCloud’s discussions on the approaches to constructing images and text to create meaning in this (type? genre?) of text in Understanding Comics:  The Invisible Art. (And was pleased to see a couple references to Spiegelman’s work.) 

One idea I found particularly interesting was the concept of masks.  McCloud explains the undefined features of iconic figures on comics enable readers to assign their own values in order to characterize these figures.  Displaying as a non-descript man with blank glasses, McCloud explains, “You give my life by reading this book and by ‘filling up’ this very iconic (cartoony) form. Who I am is irrelevant. I’m just a little piece of you. But if who I am matters less, maybe what I say will matter more,” (p. 37).

This discussion brought to mind the iconic figures Art Spiegelman applies in Maus, I and II, graphic novels in which this (dare I say original?) artist captures his father’s recollections of his survival of the Holocaust, dually depicting the tensions between father and son in coming to understand these experiences. 

Spiegelman uses icons to characterize all of the figures in Maus.  For example, the Jewish figures appear as mice, Germans are cats, and Poles are pigs.  When Jews are posing as Poles, Spiegelman draws the mice wearing the mask of a pig.  Such images cause readers to associate their perceptions of these icons with the characters, reinforcing the author’s intended characterization.  For example, the common concept of cats chasing/dominating mice reinforces the Jewish figures’ victimization. 

But why the association of Poles with pigs?  Despite the positive role some of the Polish figures assume in Maus, would the use of iconography here instill misrepresentation?  I use this only as an example to question how artists attempt to minimize inevitable misreadings of their work when constructing meaning around such weighty concepts.

After reading Scott McCloud’s Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art, I feel compelled to share one of my favorite comics, Kawaii Not, with you. Kawaii Not labels itself as “the comic for cute gone bad,” but more often than not they are just cute gone funny.

Unlike a traditional comic book or strip, each Kawaii Not strip is read from top to bottom only. There is no left to write panel. The traditional  panel gutter is replaced by a dotted white line. The “cute” objects are personified; thus, their cartoonish appearance allows readers to identify with the objects, so their human-like thoughts and actions become amusing.

Kawaii Not may have a juvenile flair, but it also is a respectable comic strip that breaks convention. It is witty and good spirited. Enjoy the comic, but remember to beware of the cute—it’s addicting!

I thoroughly enjoyed Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics.  It was a book that gave a great in-depth analysis of an art (and I know now that it is an art) that is often brushed off as being "for kids."

The first thing that really interested me was McCloud's distinction between "realistic" and "iconic".  I found this point to be especially powerful when, on page 36, he has a side-by-side comparison of the iconic version of himself and the realistic version of himself, stating that if he had illustrated himself in the realistic sense throughout the entire book, "...You would have been far too aware of the messenger to fully receive the message."

Another great portion of the book focused on the concept of "closure", especially between panels (a space called the "gutter").  McCloud really explains the power of the gutter on page 68 where he talks about the duty of reader-participation between panels.  I see his point, and agree that this is a very fun, powerful, and important part of comics.  But I also had a bit of a hard time accepting the concept 100%.  For example, his illustration of the murder scene, as well as his later examples of "Peek-a-boo" and the blinking eye, all made me think that the gutter space may leave a lot of room for error.  For example, if I saw two panels, both with an open eye, I wouldn't assume that it had ever closed or blinked, I would simply be under the impression that the creator drew the same eye twice.  This brings me to my first discussion question:

1)  Does the concept of closure in combination with the presence of gutters create the possibility for readers to make mistakes?  If so, could there be consequences to these mistakes?

I must also mention that I very much appreciated McCloud's distinction between the common styles of the East versus the West.  It was very cool seeing not only the aesthetic differences, but the thought process that is behind them as well.  This brings me to question numero dos:

2)  Japanese comics are cited as being more focused on "being there", and American comics more concerned with "getting there."  With our country now utilizing newer technologies that bring us more information faster and more frequently, would the Japanese style of 1,000 page comics that emphasize the moment-to-moment and aspect-to-aspect transitions have as great a success here?  Do you feel that our fast-paced lifestyles and technology would hinder our ability to appreciate this type of comic?

The discussion on time (Chapter 4) was another thought-provoking section.  I especially enjoyed his thoughts on linear movement from panel to panel, and how we, as readers, assume that as we read, the panels that lie behind us are the past and ahead of us are the future.  He then gave a very interesting example of non-linear possibilities on page 105.  This brought to mind our past discussions about information being displayed in a linear manner.

3)  Are comics (or information in general) better displayed in a linear sense, or would a non-linear approach yield better results?  Would it yield worse results?  Furthermore, what new possibilities may be opened up by going non-linear, and maybe even integrating "viewer choice"?

Another concept that caught my eye was McCloud's thoughts on images and colors conveying emotion to the viewer.  The discussions in Chapter 5 were great, and I liked that he talked about the influence of impressionist painting on the idea of images provoking an emotional and even sensual response.  In Chapter 8 he also talks about the power of color.  My next discussion question has to do with these two ideas:

4)  Would you say that images or colors are more effective at evoking a sensual response?  Would you say a combination of both?  *This question isn't aimed at just the idea of comics, but rather how we get our information, i.e. blog layouts, web pages, etc.

My last question comes from my newfound respect and understanding of comics. 

5)  Knowing now the process and knowledge that goes behind comics, how influential do you think they are in our society?  In addition, after reading Chapter 7 (The Six Steps) do you feel that comics can be a powerful outlet for social commentary, political views, etc?

I ask this last question because of a story I remember hearing in a class last semester.  During World War II, there the character Captain America debuted with this cover:

This, to me, is a great example of a powerful message being displayed through a medium that's, as I stated earlier, often dismissed as being "made for kids."

Even though it has been a few days since President Obama’s Interactive Town Hall meeting on March 26, 2009 I thought that the discussion was important enough to our conversations to mention.  A big part of the president’s campaign was transparency of the white house and involving the people in decision making.  Whether or not he has been able to do this is still up for debate.  But he has made a step toward this with his recent virtual town hall meeting at the White House. 

President Obama was the first president to use a live video format for the Town Hall meeting, which was streamed directly onto the White House Website.  According to the NY times about 92,000 people submitted more than 100,000 questions.   They also stated that 64,000 people tuned in to the whitehouse.gov site during the event.   Citizens could review the questions and vote on the ones that they wanted President Obama to answer.  There were over 3.6 million votes cast. 

At the beginning of the meeting Obama stated, “When I was running for President, I promised to open up the White House to the American people. And this event, which is being streamed live over the Internet, marks an important step towards achieving that goal.  And I'm looking forward to taking your questions and hearing your thoughts and concerns -- because what matters to you and your families, and what people here in Washington are focused on, aren't always one and the same thing,”

Not surprisingly, most of the discussion focused on the state of the economy and what can be done to fix it.  However questions also delved into issues of health care, education, benefits for veterans, as well as many others.  The black spot of the event was the amusing although perhaps somewhat frustrating comment made by President Obama about the priorities of internet users.  The question of whether or not to legalize Marijuana as a way to help stimulate the economy was, as far as I could see, one of the most popular questions.  If you look through the categories on the white house website, the issue comes up again and again in nearly all of the categories.  However, when Obama discussed it he joked that "I don't know what that says about the online audience." 

Whether or not the question has merit is not my concern.  Granted it does probably say something about the concerns of the online audience or perhaps just the concerns of this particular sector of the online community, after all only 92,000 people submitted questions though more may have voted on them.  Or maybe it highlights the influence of special interest groups like the NORML, National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws, in the United States.  But I think that if the administration purposefully tried to at least create the appearance of opening up the White House to the people and involving the online community than they should not disregard what that community has to say no matter how silly or how much they do not want to hear it.