Submitted by Anne Dalke on Sun, 04/25/2010 - 6:07pm.
Shayna--
It works, all right, though it was very complicated for me to manipulate, and so to follow and understand the page: making it large enough to read made it too hard to navigate; making it a navigate-able size made it too small to read. Those technicalities aside (!)
...this is very impressive: first-and-foremost, in format, in your ability to do what Scott McCloud and Waking Life do--construct a critique of a form in that form. (Let's talk some more about what is gained and lost via that sort of trick: Does it dis-able the distance necessary for critique? Or, contrary-wise, marry form and content in a way that teaches more effectively than such distanced might allow?)
This is impressive, too, in what you show: the necessary intermediality (my new word!) of frame, graphics and words; the ability of a frame to move; the ability of a sequence of pictures to shift from a close up to a pan out; the ability of words to become part of the action (wow! that word bubble that kills!).
I know you want to go on with this exploration for your final project, and I can't wait to see where it will take you. One dimension we might want to think-about and play-with together is that of formatting: might "frame," "words" and "pictures" all be embedded (for example) in the page that is "graphic narrative"? Why have you "framed" them side-by-side, when the resources of the internet would allow you to engage in embedding?
This paper reflects the research and thoughts of a student at the time the paper was written for a course at Bryn Mawr College. Like other materials on Serendip, it is not intended to be "authoritative" but rather to help others further develop their own explorations. Web links were active as of the time the paper was posted but are not updated.
© Serendip 1994 - All rights reserved.
Comments
Embedding?
Shayna--
It works, all right, though it was very complicated for me to manipulate, and so to follow and understand the page: making it large enough to read made it too hard to navigate; making it a navigate-able size made it too small to read. Those technicalities aside (!)
...this is very impressive: first-and-foremost, in format, in your ability to do what Scott McCloud and Waking Life do--construct a critique of a form in that form. (Let's talk some more about what is gained and lost via that sort of trick: Does it dis-able the distance necessary for critique? Or, contrary-wise, marry form and content in a way that teaches more effectively than such distanced might allow?)
This is impressive, too, in what you show: the necessary intermediality (my new word!) of frame, graphics and words; the ability of a frame to move; the ability of a sequence of pictures to shift from a close up to a pan out; the ability of words to become part of the action (wow! that word bubble that kills!).
I know you want to go on with this exploration for your final project, and I can't wait to see where it will take you. One dimension we might want to think-about and play-with together is that of formatting: might "frame," "words" and "pictures" all be embedded (for example) in the page that is "graphic narrative"? Why have you "framed" them side-by-side, when the resources of the internet would allow you to engage in embedding?
Post new comment