3 ms·
line drawings are "not something we've evolved to be able to understand," he said, but rather, people in all cultures—and even babies and monkeys—can understand
by albertcardona 16y ago
line drawings are "not something we've evolved to be able to understand," he said, but rather, people in all cultures—and even babies and monkeys—can understand a simple line drawing.
the metaphor is often more understandable than the real thing.
Finally a possible explanation as for why Mickey Mouse cartoons are "better" than realistic 3D animation movies.
- RodgerTheGreat 16y agoScott McCloud discusses this extensively in chapter 2 of "Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art." His general thesis is that detailed images that approach or achieve photorealism are close to the way we understand and experience the world around us and in turn how we view other people. Highly "iconic" simplified line drawings and cartoons, on the other hand, are closer to our internal representation of ourselves. The result is that we often find it easier to empathize with cartoons than realistic images.
- sgk284 16y agoVery similar to the uncanny valley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
- lionhearted 16y agoGreat comment, thanks for that. I've been meaning to read some Scott McCloud for a while, but my reading list is pretty long and it never bubbles up to the top. Can you recommend any articles you've seen online that are pretty good, or any insights by McCloud you found really fascinating or counterintuitive?
- ggruschow 16y agoHis work isn't just words. Just go through it. It's easy.
- jacobolus 16y agoFor those with a deeper interest in the topic, I suggest Rudolf Arnheim’s 1969 book Visual Thinking.