October 15, 2012

Simplistic or Dynamic

As I look back at McCloud's claim of amplification through simplification I don't know if I completely  agree with what he states. The more simple the depiction is the more I can identify with it because I can in turn see myself in the image. That made sense to me at the time. After reading Arab in America I have formulated the idea in my head again and it doesnt make as much sense. I feel that if the cartoons drawn in Arab in America were drawn as simplistic that I would have no idea how to identify with them, I would not be able to tell the characters apart in a book about individualism. This is a book that is trying to explain the turmoil of a living in a society that pinpoints you as the "other" or enemy because of your appearance. How can I identify with that notion if the drawings were simplistic. In the book each character is drawn to meet the specifications of a stereotype so that I can identify with them thus making them more dynamic than simplistic. Doesn't this contridict McClouds simplistic claim? Do I identify with things better because they are simple? Or do identify with things better because they are more detailed? They both seem to make sense at this point.

1 comment:

Megan Conner said...

I as well had this question of identification through simplicity. If something lacks any detail at all, then how do we relate to it? I think that there can be too large of a grey area where we, as the reader, do not know what is trying to be said. Like you stated above, there is no way can we identify with Arabic society if there are no specific ideas or traits associated with them. There is no way to know who they are in relation to who we are.

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.