question 2 and q&a x 2

Describe the difference between a cartoonish face and a more realistic face in comics. What is the effect of each? What is the significance of their differences?

some artists draw with more detail than others in their comics. the more detailed and realistic an image is, the more separate we feel from it. for instance, when we see a photo of a face, we know it is not our face and so feel totally outside of the image. however, when we see a cartoon face with fewer features, we are able to see ourselves in that image and relate better to it. when we cannot see things, they are often a part of what we are doing, like when we are driving our vehicle. we therefore imagine it in less detail than we would see it in. so the less realistic a cartoon is, the more we can feel a part of it.



i also found the concept of closure very interesting. i wondered if, based on different experiences, people sometimes connected two images with something different. the writer/artist of the comic probably has to create a detailed enough sequence, or to include enough information in the images being viewed, to allow all readers to imagine similar closure. however, wouldn't that be difficult to do, considered the writer has his or her own experiences to draw from and could assume that everybody would close the gutter in the same fashion they would? i suppose occasionally people read things differently than others. i just realized this also happens in poetry and books, just there is not visible gap to close in those types of communication. it probably doesn't change anything drasticly, but could create infrequent confusion.

celebrities as spectacles

"When the real world is transformed into mere images, mere images become real beings — dynamic figments that provide the direct motivations for a hypnotic behavior. Since the spectacle’s job is to use various specialized mediations in order to show us a world that can no longer be directly grasped, it naturally elevates the sense of sight to the special preeminence once occupied by touch: the most abstract and easily deceived sense is the most readily adaptable to the generalized abstraction of present-day society. But the spectacle is not merely a matter of images, nor even of images plus sounds. It is whatever escapes people’s activity, whatever eludes their practical reconsideration and correction. It is the opposite of dialogue. Wherever representation becomes independent, the spectacle regenerates itself." - Guy Debord

this aphorism really made think of society's obsession with the lives of rich/famous people with whom they have had absolutely no real experiences. because people are constantly bombarded with images of celebrities, they start to feel that they actually know them. "it is the opposite of dialogue" because it is a completely one-sided relationship. the spectacles (the celebrities in magazines and such) do not know anything about any of the people who know the intimate details of their lives through photos and interviews. guy debord makes a sound point when in reference to this spectacle.