I strongly suspected that this one was flogging the proverbial dead moose, as it took so long not just to actually draw (linear perspective + that stupid crib), but rewriting the damn caption over and over - which is partially evident by the changes seen across this convoluted process post - and over so as to get the idea across.
That's usually a red flag that you're reaching, and no amount of editing will salvage what is probably a lost cause cartoon. But there are special ones that I won't let go, especially if the core concept is, uh, killer.
Composition plays a crucial component here, as the eye has to wander around connecting all the dots. There's a slight bit of misdirection employed that tries to briefly override the instinctual top-to-botton/left-to-right initial scan of the image, and hopefully hone in instead on the gaze cues of the couple first, which'll lead right down to the crying kid, and then lastly fill in the final bit of visual information to complete the puzzle with noticing the menacing monster in the nursery's background. This feint is akin to the timing + pacing of a comedian's delivery doing standup. I used this as an example in a recent class as to how and why the deliberate arrangement of visual elements juxtaposed with text can be so important. My entire MFA thesis was in fact predicated on how the sequential cognitive interpretation of a single-panel gag cartoon qualifies it as "sequential," even if it lacks the requisite panels + gutters (for example in a strip, or page).
Speaking of the MFA in Sequential Art from SCAD, this panel hearkens back to a personal favorite 5-page piece done called "Deady Bear."
No comments:
Post a Comment