icon.

As soon as Michael said he was interested in branding as a kid, I knew was going to like his presentation. In fact the first two slides with the bright colors and oversized but simple text got my heart-race pumping. I love typography and using text to be visually appealing. The first half of his presentation was really inspiring and specifically resonated with me because I’m at the prime age to indulge in my superficiality and pop-culture/commercial art fascination. I love the icon but to be honest I had no idea what type of art that was called. I admire the simplicity so the fact that Michael put a name on this art form that I like was exciting. He talked about how the aesthetic oh his iconography was simple, direct and brief. I really liked seeing the definition of iconography and how it’s used. I thought it was funny how he pointed out that 15 minutes on a computer can make anyone a “graphic designer.” Because everything is now digital or usually ends up in a digital form, some computer savvy people can spend a little time with some software and make something without going through training, let alone the entire creative process. While this is a valid point, it makes me feel shut out from the art world. I spent three years working on my high school yearbook. Two of those three I was Editor-in-Chief and was responsible for creating, developing and executing theme, design and layout of the book. Obviously I’m not expert but I’d have to say even though it wasn’t conventional art, I got a little experience in an art-related field. That said, I have zero drawing skills which means I end up in the 15-minuter category even though I have some insight. I know there was no condescension intended and he was actually just comparing what icon artists used to be revered as to what has become of the art form but sometimes these attitudes stop me from being passionate about art because I’m not “trained.” My overreaction aside, I thoroughly enjoyed most of Michael’s presentation.

The reading material was titled “The Vocabulary of Comics,” and did a good job of distinguishing different comic styles and what exactly makes a comic a comic. The narrator, who had no eyes, also introduced one of my favorite things—the icon! The reading featured icons among the practical realm, traditional symbols like yin and yang and pictorial representations like people. The idea of the icon in this context is used to create the comic and depending on the complexity of the illustration, determines the complexity of the comic. One point I thought was interesting was human perception of comics and icons, particularly inanimate objects and their juxtaposition of reality. The reading says “our ability to extend our identities into inanimate objects can cause pieces of wood [crutches] to become legs, pieces metal [utensils] to become hands,” and so on (39). I liked this realization because it is something people are not aware of often but accept that these objects serve as human functions anyway. The multimedia exhibit of Chris Coleman’s work was not my cup of tea. Unfortunately I’m drawn to primarily stationary art because I can take it all in at once. I noticed his collaboration with Michael and saw that it was similar to the animations he showed in class. However, I did like the imagery of Magnitude of the Continental Divides about 1:15 in.

The obvious connection between the reading and Michael’s presentation is of course the icon. More specifically, both talk about how simplistic the icon is supposed to be. In the reading, the author shows the progression of an illustration from a realistic depiction of complexity, objectivity and specificity to a simplistic, iconic and universal illustration. The traits that describe the iconic approach, reiterate Michael’s point to be as concise as possible. Contrastingly, even though icons are simple in design, they can often be ambiguous and puzzling in meaning. Michael said he aimed for confusion in his pieces and the article states “simple elements can combine in complex ways” (45). Chris Coleman’s multimedia showcase with Michael about the animation series is a perfect example of something very simple being complicated and meaningful. In addition to relating to the iconic theory, the title of this work, “My House is not my House,” relates to page 26 of the reading that shows an assortment of icons and captions that read “this is not a _____,” (what it appears to be) but rather an idea.

http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2007/11/