Some things were clarified for me a bit here:
Research and Methodology paper: this is related to HOW I conduct my research; what methods I used to carry out my research.
Studio Theory: Situatedness of my research; concerned with where my research is situated in a wider context; how it relates to other practitioner's work/texts.
Critical Theory
Critical theory is related to a number of philosophical thinkers, those whose works I will not go into detail. But from my notes I have concluded that critical theory is a way of questioning the logos/logic and reasons as well as the dogmatism of higher authority. Philosopher Kant emphasized the the notion to overcome rules and regulations, and to use one's own reason to think. In some way, critical theory is the methodology to question and even combat the political powers in favour of finding a dissonant truth (accepting different view points of what is true, even though there is no consensus).
In my own time, I did some readings on critical theory, which cleared my mind to some extent. The reading explained that critical theory broaches issues concerning race, gender, inclusions and exclusions, marginalization and privilege within an art and design context that would otherwise go unseen or neglected by other methodologies. Reading the passage was much more enlightening, if you will, than listening to the rather convoluted lecture we received from the tutor.
Aesthetics
Again there was a lot of confusion happening in this listening concerning aesthetics; an otherwise (as I thought) simple concept of the judgment of what is considered beautiful. As the tutor began unraveling the philosophical implications behind aesthetics, my mind began to be led astray as I strive to follow. The origin of aesthetics came from the archaic Greek word "aesthesis", which means what becomes to appearance from out of itself; or to allow what it is by letting it emerge as what it is.
To put it more concisely, aesthetic judgment is concerned with our inner worldly self. The judgment is purely subjective. It is the beauty of the object (natural or man-made) we encounter that brings us a bodily sensation of pleasure, to which we would regard as beautiful; not the act of judging that something is beautiful brings us pleasure. Again I went and consulted some other texts explaining aesthetics, and they were surprisingly similar to what the lecturer had explained, except I was able to elect the more essential principles of the theory myself. Aesthetics is the principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty, especially in art; it is also the branch of philosophy that deals with these principles and artistic taste. It would also imply questions such as what does our judgment of aesthetics explain about us? And what is this judgment grounded upon? It also states that though a beautiful object is 'purposive', it is not necessarily purposeful.
Narrotology
This was the topic I wished the tutor would discuss more on. Personally, before being educated about this methodology, I related narrotology to all kinds of narrative. As the lecturer explained, narrotology is the logos/logics and discourse of narrative. He then went on to the certain history of narratology, rooted in the study of language. As stories were passed on orally in many cultures, he stated that the language was an essential part of communicating them. The philosophy and study languages were concerned with what someone says, until an important linguist, Ferdinand de Saussure came along and disputed that it was actually more concerned with what one hears. To hear means to register an acoustic image (signifier), to which we then interpret meaning (signified) from. Together these forms semiotics, or signs, that are understood before meaning can arise. And with that, it was said that narrotology frameworks are structured like a language.
I did some further readings on narrotology in my own time, and found out some interesting theories. Narraotology braids human experience from different perspectives through language and the stories we tell. It is based on valuing everyday experiences, on stories told, as an explanation of the social, cultural and institutional influences at play in one's life and how these shape lived experiences. The reading went on to say that oral narrative was considered crucial to deepening understanding, in particular the histories of people suffering from patriarchal and colonial systems. This was far more significant and strongly related to my project than all the other methodologies. Now I have to think of way to putting this into practice. The way I interpret narrotology is like to structure the research practice like a story or narrative, to have a beginning, middle and end; to teach or create an experience and develop deeper understanding of something that would otherwise go unnoticed. I had anticipated that the lecturer would elaborate on this further, to go into more crucial territory; but it seemed doing research on my own would gather more substantial information.
I then went on to do more of my research for the contextual review. As usual, I seemed to have difficulty to find relevant material for my research. Some keywords I used were: comics, children's comics, horror, horror comics (I focused on the horror comic genre); and I came across an interesting review on a book that was marginally related to my practice. It was by Louis Menand, a critique on David Hadju's "Ten Cent Plague: The Great Comic Book Scare and How it Changed America" simplt named "The Horror". The first half was largely concerned with the court case concerning the production of horror comics in the 1950s. As stated "by 1952, a third of all comics were horror: 'Chamber of Chills', 'Tomb of Terror'..." And during the court listening, a German writer/physicist/psychiatrist named Fedric Wertheimer testified that comics were having deteriorating affects on juveniles. He went on arguing that "'Batman' was homoerotic and 'Wonderwoman' was sadomasochism"; "Superman" was, as Wertheimer claimed, "...arouse in children's fantasies of sadistic joy in seeing other people punished over and over again, while you yourself remain immune." As the review furthered the negative view on comics at that time period, I found out that laws were passed to restrict the number of comic books produced, as well as strict censorship legislated to their contents. It was then when Betty Boop's dresses were modified to be less revealing and more "age-appropriate". This may be a vital piece of information to support the situation of parents being discouraging towards children reading comics, and the reason why there are not many comics aimed at children. Though the legitimacy of this article may not be as sufficient, as it was the 1950s, it may act as a root for some people's belief that comics are bad for kids. This article also touched on the rise of comics in the 1970s. There was not a lot of detail as to how comics came to rise again, but it may be important for my research. I might look up Hajdu's book for a read myself.
The reading aforementioned above also made me think about another possible research area, I have been focusing a lot on comics, yet I seemed to have neglected the fact that comics seemed to be a term used more for western comics. Manga, something regarded to be somewhat less than comics, has had a boost in popularity recently. Maybe this was an area I needed to look into to find more perspectives to support my view on comics being beneficial towards younger readers.
I tried to find connections between horror comics and children, or children and their fascination with horror, but all I ended up with was articles and texts on how horror has caused negative effects on children, and investigations on how frightened children became when shown scary images on television. I have yet to find proof that children LIKE creepy crawlies. I did manage to find many artists that specialize in the horror/macabre genre, and even those who illustrate for children's books. So the question I put forward now is: why are there many children's books in the horror genre and parents seem to find them appropriate, but once it is in comics form, people seem to immediately regard it as harmful? I may be wrong, but I need to evidence to prove that I am wrong or if I am right.
Feeling somewhat helpless about this, I went on to investigate horror on its own. I remembered Vsauce mentioning a quote by Stephen King concerning horror, so I went to search it up. The quote delineated: "There are three types of fear: the Gross-Out; the sight of a severed head tumbling down a flight of stairs, it's when the lights go out and something green and slimy splatters against your arm. The Horror: the unnatural, spiders the size of bears, the dead waking up and walking around, it's when the lights go out and something with claws grabs you by the arm. And the last and worse one: Terror, when you come home and notice everything you own had been taken away and replaced by an exact substitute. It's when the lights go out and you feel something behind you, you hear it, you feel its breath against your ear, but when you turn around, there's nothing there..." (Stephen King) I loved the description and examples King used to illustrate the three different types of fear. The last one was strongly related to the Uncanny, and implicates that the unknown is in fact more terrifying than any known objects. I wanted to include this as a theme in my practice, to teach people that there will always be unknowns, and even though it is frightening, and our imaginations support this, we still have to learn to cope with it. I felt that this is a rather complex theme, and I would like to convey this in comic form to children.
I find that documenting my findings and process, my struggles and frustration helpful. As of now I am able to articulate certain aspects that would otherwise remain muddled in mind. I have also proposed questions and dilemmas concerning my project. I hope that these would act as chapters to my narrotological journey.
Here's a little treat. I am beginning to loose track of the doodles I have posted. Hopefully I don't post the same image twice.
No comments:
Post a Comment