Author: tlb394

After reading McCloud’s first four chapters on “Understanding Comics” I have really deepened my sense of awareness, understanding, and appreciation for the art of comics. McCloud provides an in-depth analysis of the basics of comics through a cleverly articulated format. 

The second chapter of the text, “The Vocabulary of Comics” was actually my favorite. I didn’t realize how many different items could be used to evoke different reactions depending on what society has rendered them to represent. I particularly liked the example of the face that was given. It was simply a circle with dashes in the centre to indicate eyes, a nose and a mouth but somehow our brains are able to connect the dots (literally) and signal it as a face. It became impossible to avoid being able to see the face. 

That type of recognition can be extremely powerful and this was further demonstrated through the implementation of symbols or icons. These icons could include a country flag, food, or even a stop sign. What was interesting was just how much was evoked from one simple icon. In taking the stop sign for example, the caption that McCloud used was “not law”. I thought this was quite funny as the first thing I thought of was in actually that you must abide by stopping at the sign. All the sign said was stop, but I had already began to extend upon what the literal meaning of the sign means and I was able to extrapolate more sophisticated information pertaining to its relevance and intended purpose. 

The hope I have for my interactive comic is to use simplistic conventions to convey a really deep and meaningful message. On the face value it may seem overly simplistic or lacking creativity but the longer you interact with the comic you begin to reflect on the deeper meaning that it is trying to convey. I think that is really powerful. 

McCloud also talks a lot about manipulating different mediums through text, icons, sizing, positioning, and also how this can distort a sense of time (Chapter 4) and place. Comics have a power to transform the ways in which we think about certain ideas and topics. They present a very clear picture to an array of audiences to simplify often challenging concepts. This is the hope I have for my comic as I wish to be able to encapsulate an issue of importance in an engaging and simplistic way to increase awareness and accessibility to information. 

McCloud’s text will definitely continue to be a source of inspiration as I continue on in my study of comics. 

I was very intrigued with McLuhan’s article “The Medium Is The Message” as it gave me a unique insight into the way in which we view technology. Quite often we focus on what the internet provides us and the content we receive without really paying attention to medium of delivery. The medium “shapes and controls the scale and form of the human association and action” (152) we often underestimate the power of the medium and the responsibility that comes with it. 

The medium in itself can create unity and divisiveness if exercised in an incorrect way. The example was given of a contrast between America and England. The English rejecting typography for the oral tradition of common law, yet America prided themselves on their use of typography due to its conformist and unifying nature. This made me think that the medium has the capacity to completely distort and change the intended meaning. If one was to write down oral traditions, they may be interpreted completely differently than if they were expressed in an oral way. 

We have a lot of responsibility with the way in which we interact with the medium of our content. We have the potential to reach far reaching audiences and as such the medium that is selected should have as much thought put into it as the thought that goes into the content of the message. 

As McLuhan states “the media is also a powerful weapon with which to clobber other media and other groups” (161). The negatively connoted diction of “clobber” insinuates destruction and is the reality of what happens when both the medium and content that are created are used in a damaging way. We don’t have to look too far on social media sites to see some of the “trolling” and “spam” that floods sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. These are examples of using such a powerful medium for the wrong reason. 

After reading the article, I agree with Psychologist C. G. Jung that “no one can shield himself from such an influence” (161). What we need to work on is the way in which we use the medium to maximize the value of our content. One in which we use that methodology for good, rather than for degradation. 

After reading both “Long Live The Web” by Tim Berners-Lee and “The Strange Geopolitics of the International Cloud” by Ingrid Burrington, I found a striking similarity. Whilst we often praise the internets structured existence (in terms of connection points, paths, and information storage) there still exists so much ambiguity within the realm of the internet. This ambiguity mainly stems from an issue that should be at the forefront of our endeavors – internet law. Both articles presented so many issues that pertain to security, encryption, hacking, identity theft, and the profiting of personal information (in the case of social media platforms). Whilst we have internet protocols, we are missing legal protocols that offer individuals protection every time they make use of the internet. 

The issue of legislating the internet becomes very difficult as it falls into international law. International Law as a branch of law doesn’t have an excellent track record of achieving much. Establishing and maintaining clear legal protocols and enforceable sanctions across International jurisdictions is negatively impeded by notions of state sovereignty. In the articles this was referenced as “data sovereignty” and when you have the competing perspectives of individuals, nation states, and companies all vying for the rights to personal data, legalities get very complicated, very quickly. 

It made me reflect upon how grand of a scale the internet is. Data centers are strewn all over the world, deep sea water cables connect continents, and the improvement of national wifi provides connectivity to literally billions of people. Yet, with all these advancements have we become slightly blind sighted to the Pandora’s Box the internet has inadvertently opened? It seems that we are focusing more on the newest IOS update rather than enacting laws to control the ability for corporations to profit of the personal information of individuals. 

Burrington especially in her article presents more pessimism on this topic as she explores the current legal battles of Microsoft in establishing ownership and accessibility of information in foreign data centers. These areas of grey in the law do permeate a sense of fear and anxiety for internet users who are not completely aware of their rights, or if they have rights at all. 

We should be making a conscious effort to progress both our operating systems but also our legislation in regards to protecting the rights of individuals online. In order to achieve, universality, net-neutralism and accessibility, we must also have law and order as a regulator. 

Throughout the piece “The Machine Stops” by E.M. Forster, the general discourse pertains to establishing a societal climate riddled with interesting perceptions of priority. The piece in the initial pages sets out the reliance that humanity has developed with technology. For example, it is stated “she knew several thousand people, in certain directions human intercourse had advanced enormously” (1). This example speaks to the power of communication and its rapid development has had expansive consequences on the ways in which we interact and with how many people at a time. Technology has now become an ‘absolute’ in the piece, whereby individuals are no longer able to speak ill about machinery in fear of “homelessness” (10) as evidenced in “you mustn’t say anything against the Machine” (2) (further note the capitalization on Machine, just like God in the succeeding sentence). We begin to see the discrediting of the natural world as everything is likened to man – seemingly placing mankind in a position of power, dominance as they create machinery. It seems as if individuals happiness depends on the presence of buttons in order to provide food, clothing, water and music for convenience. 

What I noticed throughout the remainder of the piece, and what struck me was that individuals on the airship were foreign to the natural occurrences of the world such as rising of dawn and the stars in the sky. Instead of being beautiful natural phenomenon, these phenomena instead became feared and hated. This thought is applied to the way in which natural places like Brisbane and the Himalayas are no longer recognizable with their “unmechanical names” (9). 

What gave me some sort of hope for humanities restoration, or rather change in priority was the persona of Kuno who states “it is we who are dying, and that down here the only thing that really lives is the Machine” (15).

The take away from the piece to me and what made me think was that this could be a social commentary being made on a prediction for what our life will become if we continue our technological dependence. The attendant on the flight states “we have indeed advanced, thanks to the Machine” (9) but have we really advanced? We have lost human connection, care, regard for others, natural landscapes and appreciation for natural beauty. The collapsing of the ‘world’ at the end of the piece provides both a nihilistic and optimistic approach. One in which we rid ourselves of a mechanical world but now are left to potentially reconnect with the world we turned such a distrust towards. Advancement is certainly the question but I am not entirely sure that yes is the answer.