Ceci n’est pas un moi - Representaion and Identity

So, I’ve been reading Scott McCloud’s ludicrously excellent Understanding Comics. If you have any interest in creating any kind of artwork, or anything creative at all(surely that’s just creating anything), then you should read this book, possibly twice.

After only one read through I think I could potentially have a couple of months worths of blog posts just in reactions to various elements.

Anyway, the first big one, and one that I think ties into so much of what I’m about, and what this blog is sometimes about, is the discussion of the ‘iconic’ and cartoony form, and the idea of making something more universally representative, and thus easier to identify with.

In fact, McCloud goes so far as to say that a cartoony style character, in their simplicity, the conceptual nature  of the person, becomes you.

A cartoon character is just a little piece of you. The emptiness of the simple representation, ends up being filled by your self. This is not a pipe this is you.

So the effectiveness of cartoons to engage emotionally comes from the fact that they represent us as individuals, because they are so much simpler.

With me so far? Because it makes more sense when he says it, trust me.

Anyway, I was thinking about this. The connection between making something seem more universal, and the way it will help people identify with it.

Surprisingly, it made me think about me. For this is a blog and that’s all about self obsession.

I got to thinking about how much I try to individuate myself. I’m always in the opposite process. I wear skirts to make myself stand out from the average joe, my hair is long and curly and vast, it makes people notice me. I attempt to behave differently, being more open and honest, being more thoughtful, unusual and challenging, just through my behaviour.

It’s all quite clearly to make me feel more different, to make me stand out. The opposite of the cartoonification, the simplification of creating something universally identifiable. Instead I try and make myself as unique as possible.

Am I trying to make myself less identifiable?

I mean, sure, the real world is different, but I am representing my self (whatever it is (or isn’t) that is the core of my self, me, my personality, the ‘fixed’ centre that remains the same, or not, but is consistently me) to the world. It is just a form of representation. The inner pushed outside, the performative expression of self.

But why do I want to be less identifiable? Don’t I crave human interaction, sympathy, empathy and connection?

Of course.

But I still distance myself from the universalities.

Obviously, nobody’s going to fail to recognise me as a human, but by trying to be different, I undoubtedly mark myself out at first glance as the kind of person that other kinds of people won’t want to interact with.

Is it a tribal thing? We don’t want to make friends with everybody, we just want to find other people with similar weirdnesses.

And obviously I shouldn’t make myself more generic.

Unless I’m trying to get a message across. And I want to reach people. But isn’t that best left to art. Or is, as McCloud points out, almost everything art at some level. As long as it’s not directly survival or reproduction, then it’s probably art. I like the broadness there, and I think it’s right. Not least because it gives art to anyone.

Anyway, that was a digression of sorts.

Lets get back to identifiablity, and something that has important ramifications and is part of the core of my political reasoning.

Am I different to the universal cartoon person? No, I am more detailed, and the details are more unusual, perhaps, but it is normally universal enough.

But any hint of detail, and it’s likely to veer away from me.

Except, except, except.

I’m a white male in my early twenties.

I am everywhere, I am universal, at least according to the media. Okay, so my sexuality and gender identification status is often missed out, but realistically, I don’t define myself entirely around that. And I’ve only really explored it recently. It’s still easy for me to identify with the masculine ideal, even if it is nothing like me. This is something to challenge, but it is an easy road for me.

But that’s what’s really fucked. Even with something where the strength is in it’s universality, we find minority representations rare. In all media, ethnic minorities, alternative sexualities, and women, are all under and misrepresented as protagonists. The character leads of most stories, remains predominantly white male.

All this stuff about universality falls down, because the distance I try to create from the stereotype protagonist, is forced upon so many people. Under-represented whilst growing up, means, possibly, not feeling as human. You cannot be the protagonist, so you must be a bit player, and object in the background.

Is it that dramatic? Or am I exaggerating? I’m not certain. It’s trickier than it may initially seem. Because our world is so used to being mediated in this way. Or we’re used to it, or whatever.

Remember this next time you’re engaging in the audience participation element of art (this is, most present in comics and computer games, which we’ve talked about before…it’s also true in novels, but written language is abstract enough that it’s already universal. Sure there can be problems, but it’s easier to rebuild in your own image, because your image is the only image there is…probably). Just think about how you’re identifying with something, how you relate to it, and how universal, it, you, and everyone else is.

It’s a network of relationships and perceptions, and it’s fascinating but strange. And I’m only scratching the very surface.

Complex ramble. Any sense? Am I off on a limb or actually making a statement.

Bloody rambling just woken up posts. No focus.

—————-
Now playing: Sneaky - [Feel Like a King] The Gentle Rain [foobar2000 v0.9.4.3]
via FoxyTunes

5 Comments

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a comment

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website