B1 中級 2565 タグ追加 保存
動画の字幕をクリックしてすぐ単語の意味を調べられます!
単語帳読み込み中…
字幕の修正報告
[ Background noise ]
>> Hello, hello.
So most people upon learning that I study graphic novels,
which is highfalutin term for comic books,
graphic novel is really just a comic book
that takes itself seriously.
Most people upon learning that, and maybe stifling some ridicule
or laughter, may not realize that comic books have grown up.
In comic books, it is my argument
that we have unique opportunities
for seeing the social, and by that, I mean the way
that comic books often depict a single figure
in proximate relationship to depictions of community.
But before we get to anything so romantic and abstruse
and grandiose as that, most people want
to know about the movies.
Hey, wasn't that one film, From Hell,
originally a graphic novel?
It was. Wasn't that one movie, A History of Violence,
originally [inaudible] yes, yes again, it was.
It turns out that are a lot of movies that take graphic novels
as their templates, and some of us who know comics
and graphic novels quite well are sometimes a bit disappointed
when we see that even those scenes in the films
that are the most poignant to see are taken directly
from the comic book on which they're based, leads us to ask,
why is it that so many films these days are based on comics?
I think one answer has to be
that comics provide incredible opportunities
for identification.
We heard a talk earlier that suggested
that the human brain is ideally trained to recognize mind
in faces, comic books love to give us the doll face,
and imbue the doll face with mind
because we don't just have images, we also have words,
and the words are usually accorded
to some kind of mind activity.
However, another reason is a practical one, the problems
that anyone might encounter
in telling a story pictorially have already been solved
in the graphic novel.
All right.
Let's start with iconic abstraction, this is a panel
from Scott McCloud's Understanding Comics,
which is primer that tries
to help us understand how comics make meaning,
why they are meaningful.
Scott McCloud suggests
that realistic depictions actually detract
from our ability to, to take meaning from comics,
that he'd be -- he, he wouldn't be as convincing an avatar
if he drew himself more realistically,
and that is because he's drawn himself like a cartoon
that we tend to give him authority.
This again, has to do with the way we love to see,
narcissistic-ally perhaps, faces in just about anything,
any sort of ordinary object.
The comic though, is there to suggest that it is
in the most cartoonified kind of face that we are able
to see a reflection of the face that we might have
in our mind's eye of ourselves, and that we are so good
at projecting the face onto the two dots and the line
because it is there that we find our mind's eye reflection
of ourself.
As exemplification, let's move to the first panel
of Marjane Satrapi's wildly successful autobiography,
Persepolis -- something else, something else that's important,
the, these books are called graphic novels,
but they're usually not novels, they're often based
on autobiographies, and, you know, most people try to not lie
in their own autobiography,
this is about Marjane Satrapi's experience of growing
up during the fundamentalist revolution in Iran in 1980.
First panel just says, this is me, we are to take the cartoon
as an immediate reflection of the author artist.
Interestingly, the second panel,
and I want to give you the whole page from which
that first panel's taken, the second panel situates
that cartoon avatar of the author
in an individual panel all to herself, alongside another panel
of her peers, is it not interesting that in
that other panel of her peers, what we seem to get --
perhaps because of the veil are other girls
who in their seriality look
like indistinguishable versions of our author.
So, here the comic is able to train our eyes
to recognize individuality, despite seriality,
to see the individual despite her drawn indistinguishability
from her peers.
In the first panel, what we have is a fantasy of immediacy,
we are not supposed to see this image of the,
the cartoon as a representation of the author,
not at all, this is the author.
The fantasy in the second panel of course, is,
is that the photo real media,
the photograph is somehow subordinate to the,
the properties of reflection that we get in the comic book,
so it upends our normal understanding of a hierarchy
of arts, where the photograph would be able to contain,
to convey something that is transparently objective,
and the cartoon is just so obdurately mired
in the artist's subjectivity.
But we have a suspicion of photography in a lot of comics,
this might be some sort of [inaudible] in war
between media, but in Persepolis, we have a moment
where the father goes out to photograph events related
to the Islamic Revolution, so he is there with camera in hand,
capturing history as it happens,
poor Marjie's 10-years-old, she can't go
to the demonstrations, she can't be on the sidelines of history
as it occurs, but in her book, the one we know,
we've never heard of her father, or we've seen his photographs,
they're not famous, her book is,
his photographs are transubstantiated into the stuff
of cartoons, and it is only on that level
that they bear meaning.
We have similar suspicion of photograph
in Art Spiegelman's enormously popular graphic novel
about his father's holocaust survival, Maus, in which most
of the graphic novel depicts human beings
as anthropomorphic mice,
except for a few exceptional photographs that are inserted
in the panels, this is one
of Father Vladek looking far too
salubrious in a camp outfit that doesn't seem to associate
with our own understanding of what people look
like wearing this outfit, he was indeed a survivor,
but why does he look so healthy?
Why so clean?
Because after his camp experience, he went to a place
where they, there was a photography studio, and he,
he donned a survive --
a camp outfit and had his picture taken,
this was his commemorative photograph of his experience.
Art Spiegelman has transformed the lie that the,
that the photograph engenders here into his comic memoir.
But why the suspicion of photography within comics?
To answer, I want to go back to the movies.
One of my favorite recent heroes, think Batman
with even more psychosis,
Rorschach from Alan Moore's Watchman.
Very interesting thing about this character, he wears a mask
that is made of some sort of a high tech fugitive substance,
where the pattern that we see on that mask is constantly moving.
In the comic, however, the pattern on Rorschach's face,
which really is kind of like a Rorschach test ink blot, right?
Is -- we know it's supposed to move,
but because of the limitations
of the comic medium, it never does.
We can only ever experience the pattern on Rorschach's mask
as a still image, but it has power
because of that, nonetheless.
Its power, I would argue, is for the pattern on the image
at any one time in a, in a panel in the comic book
to visually echo other patterns,
other images we've seen elsewhere in this comic book,
for instance, this one pattern called the,
the Hiroshima Lovers, which becomes a graffiti image
that you see in the background in so many panels of,
of the world of the Watchman,
think about what this represents,
these are lovers clasping one another amidst certain disaster.
The mask can reference this other image of these lovers,
in a way that the movie never can,
that's why we call it the movies, it's, it's a cinema
of motion, all our eyes see when we see the Rorschach figure
in the movies is how the mask is constantly moving,
the pattern is always changing, ooh, lava lamp.
Ooh, lava lamp is very safe, what's not so safe?
Is to be put in a precarious position of someone
who is taking a Rorschach test, the comic book wants
to make me a patient of its own psychoanalytic penetrative test,
I become its test subject in order to read it.
Cinema? Passive spectator.
Comic? Something else.
But not only do graphic novels spur us to engage more actively
than film, they also allow us to see social relations
and abstractions through their complex interplay
of words and images.
Now, to excavate the implications of that I want
to return to the first two panels
of Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis.
Remember, the first panel says this is me when I was 10
in 1980, it's kind of our readerly contract,
we enter into in this graphic novel, this,
this is what we have to willingly suspend, that --
disbelief that that is not the author, we,
we want to engage in that fantasy, after all,
it is that fantasy which becomes our entree
into the world of this comic.
Second panel though, has some interesting information
in the caption, which I want to dissect, it says,
you don't see me in this photo,
I'm on the far left, I'm not there.
I want to ask, oh really?
Why don't I see you?
Unless I am being trained at the moment
of encountering this panel to observe
and impute almost sacred force to the,
the gutter that separates one panel from the other.
So, of course in the other panel, I, I sure do see you,
you just told me this is you when you were 10,
so there you are, and in this photo, in the caption you say,
you don't see me on the far left, well, there you are
on the far left, but I'm supposed to act
like I don't see you because the gutter has now this metaphysical
magical power to make me unsee what I obviously see.
But even if I don't -- you want to break, want to transgress
from the Latin literally to cross over a line,
if I don't want to transgress or violate that rule,
why is it that the second panel wants to give me ever
so slightly the indication of someone cut off on the far left?
Don't I see you there?
Comics, because they're constructed
of two symbol systems, word and images,
constantly juxtapose these two symbol systems
against each other, creating unique and inimitable effects--
and inimitable effects, yes.
Here's another one where the claims
of the picture unmask the claims of the text,
it's from Art Spiegelman's Maus,
it's a moment very poignantly
where the survivor father is telling his son all what is left
of the photos, interestingly it comes in a panel
that shows us cascading down to the floor a monument
of photographs, but the poignancy of this is to suggest
that that monument of photographs is all there is,
the photographs of people, the actual people no more.
But I look at, at the way page explodes with photos,
images of photos, cartoon images of photos,
and then once again I'm prodded to ask,
are photos really all that's left?
Hasn't Art Spiegelman comic artist, second generation,
survivor in a way, son a survivor, captured
and revivified what the photograph can never really
convey in this comic.
Palestine, by Joe Sacco.
Joe Sacco is a journalist and a cartoonist,
he goes to Palestine, he wants
to collect stories doing some fic descriptive ethnographic
field work, good old fashioned anthropology, but he's going
to draw up his results in not
so good old fashioned comic book form, there's a moment
where he suggests that every time he encounters militarist
action on the street that makes him afraid, he rushes off
into a taxicab and escapes the scene of imminent violence,
but it is in those taxi, taxicab escape moments
where he encounters unique intimacies
with others in the cab.
As he says here, I love the now and then intimacies
with fellow passengers, the shared candy, the anecdotes
about prisons and beatings, once a student
of electrical engineering pressed me on scholarships
in the States, well, I don't know, he says, really I could,
I could find out, my dad's an engineer, and the,
the person that is there says, yes, whatever you can do,
I must get out of here.
And then we get the captions, captions are language that exist
in another time scape, they're almost --
it's language of the present, it tends to have more authority,
he says, out of here, out of this, he scribbled his address,
I put it in my pocket, and forgot about him forever,
forgot about him forever.
Once again, I'm prodded, suspiciously,
to look at the claims of the text
and ask how the picture is revealing their fictionality.
Did you really forget about this person forever?
How could you have forgotten them, here, here they are,
here is this very scene in the taxicab,
drawn so precisely in your comic.
So, you obviously didn't forget about them,
the words claim one thing, the pictures tell us something else.
Final example for this,
back again to Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis,
this is one of those panels
that many critics would say showcases what is most unique
about comics, the way comics
in a single frame can show you complexities of identity
in influence that no moving image really could,
or moving images could in a different way, but not so,
not so concisely, not with such an economy of style.
Here our main character, our heroine is telling us
that her world, her sense of identity is determined
by two competing cultural influences.
Obviously what is religious about her,
we can see immediately because of the veil that seems
to bisect her, but the caption says, deep down,
I was very religious, but as a family, we were very modern
and avant-garde, so whereas it's very easy for me to figure
out what represents religiosity here
by where the veil the placed, I would suggest
that it's actually very difficult to figure
out what iconic symbols in, in this image are meant
to represent the avant-garde, or the modern,
could it be the draftsman's tool, the gears in space,
or the arabesque in the curlicues,
either one looks avant-garde to me.
It really does depend on our perspective, it really does
in fact depend on the way that we have been trained
by the comic to interact
with these two sometimes competing symbol systems
of the pictorial, and the verbal, how we allow them
to coalesce, how we trouble the easy way
with which they coalesce,
how we try to find meaning somewhere in between.
In the world of comics, we must learn to see for ourselves,
since the whole truth is always a complex interrelation
of words and images.
Thank you very much.
[ Applause ]
コツ:単語をクリックしてすぐ意味を調べられます!

読み込み中…

TEDxDartmouth 2011- Michael Chaney: How to Read a Graphic Novel - March 6, 2011

2565 タグ追加 保存
Why Why 2013 年 3 月 25 日 に公開
お勧め動画
  1. 1. クリック一つで単語を検索

    右側のスプリクトの単語をクリックするだけで即座に意味が検索できます。

  2. 2. リピート機能

    クリックするだけで同じフレーズを何回もリピート可能!

  3. 3. ショートカット

    キーボードショートカットを使うことによって勉強の効率を上げることが出来ます。

  4. 4. 字幕の表示/非表示

    日・英のボタンをクリックすることで自由に字幕のオンオフを切り替えられます。

  5. 5. 動画をブログ等でシェア

    コードを貼り付けてVoiceTubeの動画再生プレーヤーをブログ等でシェアすることが出来ます!

  6. 6. 全画面再生

    左側の矢印をクリックすることで全画面で再生できるようになります。

  1. クイズ付き動画

    リスニングクイズに挑戦!

  1. クリックしてメモを表示

  1. UrbanDictionary 俚語字典整合查詢。一般字典查詢不到你滿意的解譯,不妨使用「俚語字典」,或許會讓你有滿意的答案喔