At the beginning of the course I answered the question "What is style?" by saying that "Style refers to the choices a writer makes regarding word choice, phrasing, length of sentences, placement of punctuation, etc." I also added that a writer's style depends on the medium he or she uses.
While I would still agree with that, I think the definition needs to be expanded somewhat. The importance of medium is something we really stressed in this class. Through-out the course we have been looking at various mediums, such as comics and videos, and how they function compared to writing. In both cases the connections between writing and creating a comic or video were very strong; in fact, both seem to be an extension of writing.
But style is more than just enhancements or flourishes. Style is the procedure and guiding principles used to create a work; it is the foundation of any writing, video, art, music, etc. Style is what separates one piece of work from any other; what makes an individual's work his or her own and reflects their personality, culture, society, etc.
Style is the choices one makes when creating a work, whether it's a piece of writing, video, art, etc. Every single decision we make-from the words and images we include to the medium we use-is an element of style. Many of the same principles and concepts are used through-out various mediums and disciplines. For example, the process involved in creating a comic is similar to the process used to create a video.
This course changed the way I think about the choices I make in regards to my writing. My previous view of style was that in entirely depended on the type of work I was writing. This meant there was very little connection between writing I did for school, my journalism work, and my personal writing. I was trying to mimic the style I thought was acceptable for each medium, and thus lost my own sense of individual style. This class has helped me really develop my own sense of style and voice in everything I write.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Monday, December 1, 2008
Peer Review Recap 4
This time peer the peer review process went pretty well. I wrote two drafts of my essay and received helpful criticism for both. I think the quality of the suggestions have improved in general, and many were quite helpful. Personally, I've the comments I gave people were about what they could add as opposed to what they could change with regards to the writing they've already done. I added a few comments, but for the most part people simply had not expanded upon ideas enough.
I feel that the nature of our advice during peer reviews has become much more critical while at the same time has gotten more helpful. At first many people seemed unsure about what they should comment on and felt the need to make changes to other people's writing just to prove that they had done the assignment. After we talked about the peer reviewing process in class halfway through the semester people tended to improve the quality of their comments.
I found that through-out the semester one standard thing was that most of my comments were to encourage people who hadn't written enough to actually write more, or to do the assignment at all. I've tried to include as much constructive criticism as I could, but if people don't write enough to give us something to edit it kind of defeats the point. As I said, this time it went better, but I still felt like I was writing "expand on this" over and over.
In terms of the advice I received, most of it had to do with making statements more clear. This helped me pin-point some paragraphs that I felt weren't quite working or were more confusing than they should have been.
I feel that the nature of our advice during peer reviews has become much more critical while at the same time has gotten more helpful. At first many people seemed unsure about what they should comment on and felt the need to make changes to other people's writing just to prove that they had done the assignment. After we talked about the peer reviewing process in class halfway through the semester people tended to improve the quality of their comments.
I found that through-out the semester one standard thing was that most of my comments were to encourage people who hadn't written enough to actually write more, or to do the assignment at all. I've tried to include as much constructive criticism as I could, but if people don't write enough to give us something to edit it kind of defeats the point. As I said, this time it went better, but I still felt like I was writing "expand on this" over and over.
In terms of the advice I received, most of it had to do with making statements more clear. This helped me pin-point some paragraphs that I felt weren't quite working or were more confusing than they should have been.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Looking back at past readings, looking forward to the essay about the movie-making process
As we've been making the videos for the final project in this course I've been trying to look for correlations between making a video, writing a paper, and drawing a comic. The truth is in preparing for all three I've found myself taking essentially the same steps: transforming a rough idea into a structured outline and eventually into a (more or less) polished final piece.
The big difference is that with essays I've gotten this down to an almost exact science. I've written so many essays in my life that I know exactly which steps to take and how to take them. With comics and videos the path is a bit less familiar. However, I've found the same approaches that I've used to prepare for an essay can be applied to videos and comics.
For instance, when preparing for the video we created an outline of the different scenes, characters, and props and a rough draft of a "script" that we built upon as we went.
As I was reading Alexandra Juhasz's piece "Why Not (to) Teach on Youtube" I was immediately reminded of Ong and Baron's description of the resistance people had to previous advances in technology with regards to writing. Just as with the written word and the computer, people are hesitant to incorporate Youtube videos into a wider application because it is unfamiliar and people generally have a hard time accepting things that they aren't entirely comfortable with into their lives.
As with Juhasz's students, my group often expressed feelings along the lines of, "I'd rather just write a paper" because the process of writing is much more familiar to us, even though it's no more demanding than writing a paper. It offers different obstacles which are unique to the medium, such as problems with cameras, scripting, acting, etc.
Though the same thing occured when we were analyzing pictures and comics. Things Scott McCloud talked about regarding comics were just as unfamiliar to me as many of the elements related to film, yet at the same time there was also a very strong connection in terms of processes that allowed me to use my foundation in writing principles to translate both image and video principles into a language I could understand and was familiar with.
The big difference is that with essays I've gotten this down to an almost exact science. I've written so many essays in my life that I know exactly which steps to take and how to take them. With comics and videos the path is a bit less familiar. However, I've found the same approaches that I've used to prepare for an essay can be applied to videos and comics.
For instance, when preparing for the video we created an outline of the different scenes, characters, and props and a rough draft of a "script" that we built upon as we went.
As I was reading Alexandra Juhasz's piece "Why Not (to) Teach on Youtube" I was immediately reminded of Ong and Baron's description of the resistance people had to previous advances in technology with regards to writing. Just as with the written word and the computer, people are hesitant to incorporate Youtube videos into a wider application because it is unfamiliar and people generally have a hard time accepting things that they aren't entirely comfortable with into their lives.
As with Juhasz's students, my group often expressed feelings along the lines of, "I'd rather just write a paper" because the process of writing is much more familiar to us, even though it's no more demanding than writing a paper. It offers different obstacles which are unique to the medium, such as problems with cameras, scripting, acting, etc.
Though the same thing occured when we were analyzing pictures and comics. Things Scott McCloud talked about regarding comics were just as unfamiliar to me as many of the elements related to film, yet at the same time there was also a very strong connection in terms of processes that allowed me to use my foundation in writing principles to translate both image and video principles into a language I could understand and was familiar with.
YouTube/Low-bridge videos
The merit behind the use of what Daniel Anderson refers to as "low-bridge approaches to multimedia" is ultimately decided based not on the result of these projects but the intentions. It only makes sense for education and classrooms to change along with technology. Whenever a new technology comes along which is affordable and accessible there will be those who immediately want to integrate it into every facet of society and those who deny its benefits.
We've seen this already when we read Walter Ong and Plato's "Phaedrus." Utilizing Youtube and other similar things in the classroom falls into a long list of progress in technology that has offered a sort of cultural and social revolution, as Michael Wesch shows in his video "An Anthropological Introduction to Youtube." The effects this had on society is undeniable, but its application in the classroom is at best controversial.
In his article "The Low Bridge to High Benefits" Daniel Anderson investigates the potential for Youtube as a teaching aid. "Could it be that low-bridge new media technologies provide the right mix of challenge and ease of use for instructors and students to develop a sense of control, creativity, and flow? The entry-level nature of low-bridge technologies ameliorates difficulties that can shut down flow, but the challenge of composing with unfamiliar forms opens pathways
to creativity and motivation." (44)
The point he makes in this paragraph is an interesting one which seems to draw its evidence from the social effects of Youtube. It is something almost everyone of my generation knows about, many of whom already utilize it. It only makes sense to take something which is an active part of both the cultural and social lives of students and use it stimulate learning. If you think about the difference between student made films and student made Powerpoint presentations really isn't very much.
However, with videos there is a definite aspect of disorganization. With the film project for this class I found that the need for organization was incredibly important: if one element is out of place the rest comes crashing down very easily. Unlike with writing a paper or preparing a project where you have a limited number of easily anticipated obstacles (developing a thesis, finding sources, collecting research, etc) videos provide a myriad of obstacles, many of which are unpredictable and new.
In any situation where technology plays a pivotal role there is the potential for disaster, whether it be user-created or inherent to the technology. Video assignments tend to be viewed as fun and easy in comparison to essays, so the expectations are that it's something which can be improvised without much thought. What I found is that our group utilized a number of traditional approaches to make this system more familiar: outlines, scripts, etc.
In her article "Why Not (to) Teach on Youtube," Alexandra Juhasz describes her experience teaching a class through Youtube.
"Of the many surprises and challenges of this class, it was most dumbfounding for me to find
how resistant my students were to the loss of discipline, authority, and structure in the classroom. They hated the amount of process this course demanded; disliked that I wouldn’t just
tell them stuff; were reluctant to do course work in a new format in which they lacked training;
and generally wanted me to take control so that they could attend to other things and more
clearly understand what they needed to do to satisfy me."
Our group faced a similar situation, where the familiarity and predictability of writing papers was more appealing compared to the amount of effort and energy it takes to make a movie. In the end I think both Juhasz and Anderson make valid points, but the technology and its application are both still in their infancy. If video assignments begin to become a normal aspect of education and are used often enough for students and instructors to become familiar and comfortable with them, they could become helpful educations tools. If anthing, the failure of Juhasz's class is due to students simply not being used to the medium. As with any new technology, the more it is used the more people become familiar with it resulting in useful applications.
We've seen this already when we read Walter Ong and Plato's "Phaedrus." Utilizing Youtube and other similar things in the classroom falls into a long list of progress in technology that has offered a sort of cultural and social revolution, as Michael Wesch shows in his video "An Anthropological Introduction to Youtube." The effects this had on society is undeniable, but its application in the classroom is at best controversial.
In his article "The Low Bridge to High Benefits" Daniel Anderson investigates the potential for Youtube as a teaching aid. "Could it be that low-bridge new media technologies provide the right mix of challenge and ease of use for instructors and students to develop a sense of control, creativity, and flow? The entry-level nature of low-bridge technologies ameliorates difficulties that can shut down flow, but the challenge of composing with unfamiliar forms opens pathways
to creativity and motivation." (44)
The point he makes in this paragraph is an interesting one which seems to draw its evidence from the social effects of Youtube. It is something almost everyone of my generation knows about, many of whom already utilize it. It only makes sense to take something which is an active part of both the cultural and social lives of students and use it stimulate learning. If you think about the difference between student made films and student made Powerpoint presentations really isn't very much.
However, with videos there is a definite aspect of disorganization. With the film project for this class I found that the need for organization was incredibly important: if one element is out of place the rest comes crashing down very easily. Unlike with writing a paper or preparing a project where you have a limited number of easily anticipated obstacles (developing a thesis, finding sources, collecting research, etc) videos provide a myriad of obstacles, many of which are unpredictable and new.
In any situation where technology plays a pivotal role there is the potential for disaster, whether it be user-created or inherent to the technology. Video assignments tend to be viewed as fun and easy in comparison to essays, so the expectations are that it's something which can be improvised without much thought. What I found is that our group utilized a number of traditional approaches to make this system more familiar: outlines, scripts, etc.
In her article "Why Not (to) Teach on Youtube," Alexandra Juhasz describes her experience teaching a class through Youtube.
"Of the many surprises and challenges of this class, it was most dumbfounding for me to find
how resistant my students were to the loss of discipline, authority, and structure in the classroom. They hated the amount of process this course demanded; disliked that I wouldn’t just
tell them stuff; were reluctant to do course work in a new format in which they lacked training;
and generally wanted me to take control so that they could attend to other things and more
clearly understand what they needed to do to satisfy me."
Our group faced a similar situation, where the familiarity and predictability of writing papers was more appealing compared to the amount of effort and energy it takes to make a movie. In the end I think both Juhasz and Anderson make valid points, but the technology and its application are both still in their infancy. If video assignments begin to become a normal aspect of education and are used often enough for students and instructors to become familiar and comfortable with them, they could become helpful educations tools. If anthing, the failure of Juhasz's class is due to students simply not being used to the medium. As with any new technology, the more it is used the more people become familiar with it resulting in useful applications.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Peer Review Recap 3
This blog post is so late because I was waiting for the other members of my group to upload their essays to Google Docs. None of them ever did. This is nothing against them personally, but I really can't offer any advice if no one does the essay until the night before. I had mine done and both Hannah and Nick offered very helpful advice and suggestions which I used to improve my paper. I tried to help them as much as I could, including making comments on an outline Hannah had of her paper. I guess this is just one of the perils of the peer editing process. Cest la vie.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Reading and Writing about Comics ala McCloud, Part 2
For this post I chose to talk about Allison's blog. The comic she discussed was called "The Silencer," a comic about two boys who find a pistol while fishing.
One interesting thing I found about her post was that she discusses the inherent differences between internet and print comics. One point she touches on is how the internet offers more possibilities for comics than printed medium. She explains: "Instead, I would argue that the web allows for "infinite gutters", requiring more closure and direct participation from the reader, not eliminating the need for it."
Now, this is deviating from the purpose of the post a bit, but I found this to be very interesting. Obviously "Understanding Comics" was written before online comics were around (or were at least very popular, accessible, etc). Allison discusses briefly McCloud's idea that there is a big distinction between single panel cartoons and more elaborate comics. Though she later disagrees with her own assertion, she makes the claim that McCloud might argue that her comic "The Silencer" is closer to a cartoon than a comic.
What's interesting about this is the idea that the medium really has changed. McCloud seems to have an almost condescending attitude to cartoons while viewing comics as vastly superior. In the age of the internet web based comics really seem to be changing a lot. Today the medium really has abandoned a lot of the contraints it once had, and allows comics like "The Silencer" to exist. In truth each "panel" of the comic is roughly the same size as a standard three-panel comic you would find in print. This means that each panel is very fractured in terms of time, setting, plot, etc--but in the end each provides a lot more detail that, when taken in larger context, makes the comic as a whole much more enjoyable.
The very design of internet comics seems to go beyond McCloud's definition of "Juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence..." By being able to play around with how readers see each panel, a single comic can really be just about anything.
Allison discusses how "The Silencer" seems to be a blend of realistic and cartoony images--another hallmark characteristic of internet comics. Far more options in terms of design are available to artists, meaning that the scope of comics--as well as the variation of panels within comics--can be extremely broad. This allows a comic like "The Silencer" to play around with how it delivers its storyline.
One interesting thing I found about her post was that she discusses the inherent differences between internet and print comics. One point she touches on is how the internet offers more possibilities for comics than printed medium. She explains: "Instead, I would argue that the web allows for "infinite gutters", requiring more closure and direct participation from the reader, not eliminating the need for it."
Now, this is deviating from the purpose of the post a bit, but I found this to be very interesting. Obviously "Understanding Comics" was written before online comics were around (or were at least very popular, accessible, etc). Allison discusses briefly McCloud's idea that there is a big distinction between single panel cartoons and more elaborate comics. Though she later disagrees with her own assertion, she makes the claim that McCloud might argue that her comic "The Silencer" is closer to a cartoon than a comic.
What's interesting about this is the idea that the medium really has changed. McCloud seems to have an almost condescending attitude to cartoons while viewing comics as vastly superior. In the age of the internet web based comics really seem to be changing a lot. Today the medium really has abandoned a lot of the contraints it once had, and allows comics like "The Silencer" to exist. In truth each "panel" of the comic is roughly the same size as a standard three-panel comic you would find in print. This means that each panel is very fractured in terms of time, setting, plot, etc--but in the end each provides a lot more detail that, when taken in larger context, makes the comic as a whole much more enjoyable.
The very design of internet comics seems to go beyond McCloud's definition of "Juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence..." By being able to play around with how readers see each panel, a single comic can really be just about anything.
Allison discusses how "The Silencer" seems to be a blend of realistic and cartoony images--another hallmark characteristic of internet comics. Far more options in terms of design are available to artists, meaning that the scope of comics--as well as the variation of panels within comics--can be extremely broad. This allows a comic like "The Silencer" to play around with how it delivers its storyline.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Reading and Writing about Comics ala McCloud, Part 1
The comic I chose is called "Slim" by Nicholas Gurewitch and is found on his website Perry Bible Fellowship. PBF is known for well drawn and often cynical comics which employ a variety of comic styles.
http://www.pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF157-Slim.jpg
I chose this specific comic because it is fairly straightforward: a witness has come forward so a skinny mobster eats a whole bunch of cheeseburgers so that he's fat when called into the line-up. Both the style and content of the comic is very similar to 1920's comics like "Dick Tracy."
Another reason I chose this comic is because the artist's knowledge of comics is so wide that he is successfully able to parody a wide number of comic styles. The detail, artistic style, medium, and subject matter of every single one his comics is different.
Like any great satirist the Gurewitch has a firm understanding of the rules of comics, which is what allows him to break them so easily. As such a lot of what Scott McCloud discusses in his book Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art can be applied to Perry Bible Fellowship.
In "Slim" the level of detail is somewhere between realistic and cartoony, or what McCloud calls "iconic." (46) There's enough detail that the images are able to clearly convey what the artist wanted them to: anyone who is even remotely familiar with the detective comics of the 1930s will recognize this as a pretty faithful parody. The level of complexity for that era of comics is quite recognizable as it show fairly realistic looking figures with relatively simple facial expressions. This means that most people realize these men are mobsters: the way they are drawn allows the author to rely on the images to convey that fact, instead of supplying more background detail.
Keeping with the theme of simplicity, the comic's use of time is also fairly straightforward. Even if the comic had no words whatsoever most people would be able to figure out what was going on. Given the similarity between the first two frames and their difference from the third it's clear that we have jumped in time: obviously, a character referred to as Slim, in his distinctive green suit with purple accents, is no longer slim in the third frame.
McCloud refers to this movement in time as a scene-to-scene transition. "Deductive reasoning is often required in reading comics such as in these scene-to-scene transitions, which trasnport us across significan t distances of time and space." (71)
Between the first two panels and the third panel we understand that action has taken place, time has passed, and the setting has changed--despite not actually having seen these changes ourselves. The level of deductive reasoning which McCloud refers to is definitely visible in this comic, though it's not too hard to pick up on.
Our knowledge of the health benefits of eating a box of cheeseburgers is necessary for us to connect the skinny character of Slim from the first two panels to the fat character wearing the same clothes we see in the Police line-up in the third panel. Even though we don't see the mobster gorge himself in order to disguise himself, we can draw the conclusion based on the visual cues we are given.
McCloud often uses the term "closure" to refer to our ability to connect the dots between different ideas. For example, in "Slim" closure is achieved relatively easily as we are able to connect the skinny mobster in the green suit in the first panel to the fat mobster in the green suit in the third panel. There's essentially no ambiguity whatsoever to this comic, so the audience is quickly able to find closure.
http://www.pbfcomics.com/?cid=PBF157-Slim.jpg
I chose this specific comic because it is fairly straightforward: a witness has come forward so a skinny mobster eats a whole bunch of cheeseburgers so that he's fat when called into the line-up. Both the style and content of the comic is very similar to 1920's comics like "Dick Tracy."
Another reason I chose this comic is because the artist's knowledge of comics is so wide that he is successfully able to parody a wide number of comic styles. The detail, artistic style, medium, and subject matter of every single one his comics is different.
Like any great satirist the Gurewitch has a firm understanding of the rules of comics, which is what allows him to break them so easily. As such a lot of what Scott McCloud discusses in his book Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art can be applied to Perry Bible Fellowship.
In "Slim" the level of detail is somewhere between realistic and cartoony, or what McCloud calls "iconic." (46) There's enough detail that the images are able to clearly convey what the artist wanted them to: anyone who is even remotely familiar with the detective comics of the 1930s will recognize this as a pretty faithful parody. The level of complexity for that era of comics is quite recognizable as it show fairly realistic looking figures with relatively simple facial expressions. This means that most people realize these men are mobsters: the way they are drawn allows the author to rely on the images to convey that fact, instead of supplying more background detail.
Keeping with the theme of simplicity, the comic's use of time is also fairly straightforward. Even if the comic had no words whatsoever most people would be able to figure out what was going on. Given the similarity between the first two frames and their difference from the third it's clear that we have jumped in time: obviously, a character referred to as Slim, in his distinctive green suit with purple accents, is no longer slim in the third frame.
McCloud refers to this movement in time as a scene-to-scene transition. "Deductive reasoning is often required in reading comics such as in these scene-to-scene transitions, which trasnport us across significan t distances of time and space." (71)
Between the first two panels and the third panel we understand that action has taken place, time has passed, and the setting has changed--despite not actually having seen these changes ourselves. The level of deductive reasoning which McCloud refers to is definitely visible in this comic, though it's not too hard to pick up on.
Our knowledge of the health benefits of eating a box of cheeseburgers is necessary for us to connect the skinny character of Slim from the first two panels to the fat character wearing the same clothes we see in the Police line-up in the third panel. Even though we don't see the mobster gorge himself in order to disguise himself, we can draw the conclusion based on the visual cues we are given.
McCloud often uses the term "closure" to refer to our ability to connect the dots between different ideas. For example, in "Slim" closure is achieved relatively easily as we are able to connect the skinny mobster in the green suit in the first panel to the fat mobster in the green suit in the third panel. There's essentially no ambiguity whatsoever to this comic, so the audience is quickly able to find closure.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)