Week 3: The Comic Strip

This week I read a collection of Mickey Mouse Dailies, the Sacred Jewel. Personally, I thought it was incredibly interesting seeing a character that I know, in a form that I wasn't previously familiar with.

In contrast to the word-less comics we read the first week, it is clear that Walt uses words full force in his comics. Rounded boxes of type are in practically every frame, yet their hand-written-look doesn't distract from the beautiful compositions in each frame. As a designer, along with the graphics, the type is what I tended to gravitate towards. I appreciated the recaps at the beginning of the strips (since they were published each day), and how the writing is done so that the reader is reading in that characters voice. Words are spelled phonetically how the character would say them. I thoroughly enjoyed this, and although it was hard to read at times, I found it much more interesting and unique.

Aside from the type, I also appreciated the styling of the comic. Each character was so uniquely styled and designed that the reader was never left confused as to who was talking in each frame. With only black and white at Walt's disposal, he was able to create depth and contrast with the use of grays and harsh filled blacks.

Through the use of dynamic poses and descriptive words, Walt Disney found success with his Mickey Mouse comics. It's not surprise that this title character became a celebrity. Perhaps it was my knowledge of the character before reading, but I found these strips to read like a chopped up animation.

Week 2: The Rooster's Laughter

The Rooster's Laughter by Max Ernst

1. Woman poses in dance-like graceful form while rooster balances on a ball, next to basket of eggs.
2. Rooster-man looks over sleeping/dead/unconscious girl, rooster watches.
3. Girl is burried under the floor while 2 rooster people, and naked woman look upon her. Rooster is not shown.
4. Rooster-people look upon statuesque naked woman, she looks sick.
5. Dead looking woman pictured in bedroom on the floor, Rooster-man is shown yelling with arms raised.
6. Woman dances while Rooster-man looks upon her from behind a door.
7. Rooster-man sits with two women at the theatre.
8. 2 women hide from Rooster-monster, goose head sticking out of woman's back.
9. Man pulls at Skeleton, skeleton is holding another skeleton, another figure is pictures looking off panel, seems uninterested. Rooster is pictures on floor looking upon them.
10. Rooster-men are grabbing women, unconsentually.
11. Rooster-men tied up another fellow bird-man.
12. Rooster-men have a woman tied up, looks tortured.
13. Women are shooting at one another, roosters standing around.
14. Rooster-man pointing at body of woman hung.
15. Rooster-man is pictured hung in a bedroom. The bedroom of the woman on the floor? Lovers?
16. Rooster-men raise flag above city.

Perhaps a commentary on animal abuse, the treatment of Chickens and Roosters by humans.

Week 2: Understanding Comics

After reading Understand Comics this week, I found it was full of interesting and thought provoking ideas that I had never encountered before. Specifically, there was a section in which icons are discussed. The comic mentions icons and the simplification of pictures. Specific and realistic images of people speak to only a few, however, abstracting and simplifying forms allows people to more easily identify with an image of a human. “The more cartoony a face, for instance, the more people it could be said to describe.” 

Humans are self centered and see themselves in everything. Even simply adding a dot to a shape can make the mind think you’re staring at a face. I found this aspect of the chapter incredibly interesting because I have often found myself seeing faces and human-like shapes in objects, but never really stopped to question why and how. It’s pretty amazing how simple and abstract shapes can convey such a complex thought. The comic continues to go on about the human face, and how when looking at others we are constantly analyzing their facial features, but our own features remain blurry and “cartoonish” to ourselves. That being said, when thinking of others, we see a vivid image in our minds, however, when it comes to ourselves, we identify more with cartoons, and less detailed imagery. Although I agree, I’m not sure how accurate this is. With mirrors and photographs, I believe its pretty easy to know the details of ones’ own face, however, I can see how in conversation you wouldn’t have as vivid of an image of yourself as you would the person you were talking to. You can identify with a cartoon, but I believe you can also identify others with cartoons. Furthermore, the comic describes our fascination with cartoons from a child. After identifying with cartoons, we become them. 

This led me to thinking, perhaps comics aren’t imitating us, maybe we’re imitating them?