Check this junk out: http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2012/08/visualizing-mythic-image.html
(and be sure to read through the comments section, as well.) Quite mind blowing. Like I said, James Gurney, man.
Plato would do away with representational art, saying it's just an imitation of that which is already an imitation of an ideal. Would more abstract iconic art then be closer to the higher forms, or a further corruption of a representation; i.e. if you're going to represent something anyway, is it better or worse to favor the realistic over the iconic? Scott McCloud points out that it's easier to accept and access a comic book which uses simpler more iconic artwork- artwork that doesn't call attention to itself as art, but rather lets the imagination fill in detail and tell a story in conjunction with words.
The idea of a thing more powerful than the thing itself. This has always been pretty patently true. Applied to art, and how the iconic becomes seen as being the realistic because we miss the shorthand in real life. Remember how a comic panel isn't literally true? In that single frame, it's more about the idea of an action than the action itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment