October 7, 2012
Icons are Societies Certified Copies
The reason I bring this up is because one of the messages found within the film is one I think to be very relatable to this reading. McCloud explores the meaning of art and brings to light the fact that a lot of imagery isn't just one copy, but copies of copies. It brings into question the value of the "original" works. If there's one point that this piece by McCloud argues, it's that these "copies" can make just as much of an impact, or more of an impact, than the original. Think about it in the sense that no work is truly an "original." The Mona Lisa captures an image. The effect is similar to that of a photograph. Especially nowadays, photographs can be altered. So that brings the question to me, why the monetary value?
It's that argument that will make most peoples head spin. What is art? Is there really a price to it when it seems that the art itself will always be unoriginal? They all draw from something. It's all representations, or as McClouds states: Icons. He states that as resemblance caries, so does the level of iconic content. What does this mean? Does it simply mean the closer it is to the real thing, the more iconic? I don't think so, there's so many masterpieces that are so far from reality. Salvador Dali comes to mind. McCloud says, admittedly clumsily, some images are just more iconic (27).
What separates works like the Mona Lisa or Sunday in the Park With George from a still image from a Hayao Miyazaki film or a panel within the pages of Neil Gaiman's Sand Man?
This is an issue that's always in the back of my mind, that might never be answered. I am curious though, of other peoples thoughts. I wanna know if it has to deal with the test of time, or the time it encompasses, because things are strange in the art world right now.