Our readings this weekend have brought into question the signification of our language’s symbols and icons. Lakoff & Johnson’s piece, “Metaphors We Live By,” argues that cultures add meaning to basic, but abstract concepts (like time) through metaphor in order for them to be more approachable. In doing so, those metaphors become so engrained and super-glued to those concepts in our language to the point where it is almost impossible to separate them. McCloud, in his “Understanding Comics,” presents to us how the simplified cartoon affects our perception of it, allowing us to focus more on the concept or the story being told instead of the character’s individuality. McCloud claims that we “extend our identities” into an image of a cartoon and fill the simplicity of it with ourselves (McCloud 36-39).
I'm faced with a few difficult questions.
In regards to Lakoff & Johnson: since one’s understanding of many concepts is deeply rooted in the use of metaphor, is it possible for one to break away from that line of thought entirely, or to adopt another conceptual metaphor? For example, can one who spends 30 years understanding “Argument is War” ever fully understand the conceptual metaphor of “Argument is a dance”? Or, if I try to immerse myself into the pursuit of understanding entirely and internally that “Argument is dance,” will I ever succeed? Do our initial culture’s conceptual metaphors have the most authority in our minds at all times?
Regarding “conduit metaphors,” which are deeply hidden within a concept, and are almost invisible, does their limitations box-in one’s full understanding of a concept? If a concept is much broader than the language--the conduit metaphor--allows, is it possible that parts of its meaning is being lost? Furthermore, if there are instances when context defines the meaning of a sentence, and others when it doesn’t, does meaning derive from language itself or one’s understanding of language?
Even here, lacking a metaphor through which to clarify my questions, I am aware that metaphors are needed to express ideas with the goal of being understood.
McCloud’s “Understanding Comics” really opened my eyes to the implications of popular culture’s embrace of cartoons. I am especially interested in his claim that we place our identities into cartoon characters in order to ‘bring them to life.’ I learned that, because humans are self-centered, cartoons are effective in reaching the deepest part of them by simplifying the visual in order to reach the...almost spiritual. His observation of our connection with cartoonized images as “icons” of our own identities is extremely interesting, but also a little difficult to connect with regarding signification. Questioning my own identity’s signification gets fuzzy, sensitive, and very abstract. But I do see where he’s coming from--cartoonized characters allow us to put aside our realities and focus on relatable, intangible concepts.
“Metaphors We Live By” and “Understanding Comics” both highlight the issue of the many ways we can signify concepts, the many ways we add meaning to our lives. Sometimes we limit our understanding of a broad concept by using metaphorical language, and other times, we will entirely forego metaphor and white-wash the realistic details of a concept in order to dive deeper into the abstract using cartoons.
---
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Excerpts from Metaphors We Live By (1980). The Literary Link.
Janice E. Patten. 2010. San Jose State University. Web.
http://theliterarylink.com/metaphors.html.
McCloud, Scott. “The Vocabulary of Comics.” In Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. New York: Harper Collins, 1994. 24-45.
McCloud, Scott. “The Vocabulary of Comics.” In Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. New York: Harper Collins, 1994. 24-45.
"Bridging the Gap Between Lakoff and Johnson and McCloud"
ReplyDeleteI can see how someone that is used to understanding argumentation as being war-like could also find it dance-like. Consider the notion that war is art. The transition between war and dance is easier to make, because war is now art—like dancing. Here's a sentence: I will lead the debate this time. The word "lead" could be thought of in terms of war (i.e. leading an army) or in terms of dance (i.e. the leading dancer of a couple dancing). This is the concept of "sub-categorization" within a system of "metaphorical concepts" (Lakoff). If war can be thought of art (which is also a metaphorical concept), then war can be thought of as a dance. Therefore, an argument could transition into a type of dance. It may be possible, however, to do more than change the perspective of what is an argument. New methods of argumentation could arise from those new perspectives. People might be able to argue in a way that is much more like a dance and much less like war.
I think Scott McCloud—in his _Understanding Comics_—has stumbled upon what could be considered an extension of George Lakoff and Mark Johnson's theories from _Metaphors We Live By_. Cartoons (or images) are "concepts," formed to represent reality (McCloud 41). In a way, images are visual metaphors. That's how Lakoff and Johnson's ideas transition over to McCloud's.
Taking this idea of visual metaphors even further, McCloud says that we "mask [ourselves] in a character and safely enter a sensually stimulating world" (McCloud 43). We make the world a character lives in out to be our own; we borrow it; because the character can die and we remain alive. Images become like the concepts Lakoff and Johnson referred to.
Consider this: People are animated. Cartoons are animated.
The word "animated" has a double-meaning that creates a metaphor for cartoons being like people, and visa versa. This is why I think the concept of images being visual metaphors is valid.
Works Cited:
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Excerpts from Metaphors We Live By (1980). The Literary Link. Janice E. Patten. 2010. San Jose State University. Web. http://theliterarylink.com/metaphors.html.
McCloud, Scott. “The Vocabulary of Comics.” In Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art. New York: Harper Collins, 1994. 24-45.