| | Thanks to everyone who's chimed in.
Joe, Thanks for the McCloud reference for further clarification on some of the points I was making.
Re: Bob
I might be taking the discussion out of context (I can't refer back to the original because his forum got hacked) but he wasn't saying the man was a bad storyteller, but just that his point by point illustration was far stronger than his storytelling (I believe it was in reference to an illustration book he was having published).
But if it puts any context on the subject, Fawstin's a hard-core Alex Toth man. Lots of pared down simplicity, everything ties into the story. Come to think of it when you talk to him everyone falls short of Toth.
It's kind of weird though because this interaction has finally put some big things about my personal aesthetics in context.
I've always had a fondness for expressionism in painting, but the more I think about it I'm not so sure it really does have a place in the realm of fine art but it still has some great value in storytelling.
Many of the great original Silent Films had a strong expressionist element to their overall design, which lent itself to deeper abstraction applied to the stories. Like how in the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari each piece of set dressing lends itself to the overall impression of fear which the film's premise demands. After Metropolis films demanded a more literalistic set dressing which has strong points and down sides.
The literalistic set dressing of modern films lends itself to the idea of actually experiencing an event happening before your eyes... this leads to deeper immersion but it also allows for too much potential distraction. When a story takes place within a room, every element in the room is reproduced on the screen. If a director uses this to an advantage it can have great effect. This would entail only using set dressing that directly forwards the premise. But on the off chance that you choose a plant, piece or art, piece of furniture, or photo that might draw someone's attention away from what your prime focus is... you take the chance of diverting the viewer's attention away from where you want it. A truly good director would always be aware of this but that breed is getting more rare as time passes.
Selective and even abstract set dressing has the down side that it pulls itself away from literal interpretation and it requires a bit more abstract thought on the part of the viewer. But since it operates on a more abstract level it lends itself to selectivity. Every piece has to fit the abstract concept, and every piece leads the viewer exactly where it is supposed to be, and pulls him deeper into the premise.
While this approach no longer works well in film, it is quite effective for both comics and stage plays. I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that one of comics biggest innovators (Will Eisner) had a father who had a background in set design for the stage. It also comes down to the fact that, both of these mediums tend to be more essential based. If it doesn't directly forward the premise, you're not going to build it onto the stage or draw it.
Just a little digression, but it's been good to get a better handle on it.
---Landon
|
|
