26 February 2013

The Narrative Armature questions

Tyler Johnson

  1. Cartooning isn't just a way of drawing; it is a way of seeing. Which part is more important. (31)
  2. Why is the cartoon universal? (31)
  3. Describe the differences in cartoon styles around the world, what is the reason for each? (43-44)
  4. “Words are the ultimate abstraction” True or False? (47)
  5. Are words abstracted but a picture is not? (49)
  6. What makes an image iconic?
  1. Can the Camera be exchanged equally for the sketchbook? (11.5)
  2. Is there or is there not, a sense of truthfulness with either the camera or the sketchbook?
  3. Would you consider the photo sequence “Rolling tire 1972” truthful to the actual event it is trying to depict? (11.5) 
  4.  Do storyboards add to or hinder to the creativity of the architect?
  1.  How would you describe “architecture in film,” “filmic architecture”?(100)
  2. “Architecture at every instant, without being able to grasp the thousandth part of a second in which the transition takes place.”  Does true architecture have to be static or can we call film architecture? (102) 
  3. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is essentially a film of a play. Can this be considered filmic architecture? (103) 


Justin Woods said...


The ability to draw, what you want others to see, is paramount.

Depending on the realism of the background, vs. that of an objects realistic nature, would determine what an author wanted a reader to identify with.

Words cannot convey the essence, to an illiterate, so no.

I feel a picture is an abstration, if the idea being conveyed cannot be seen.

An iconic image, holds the same meaning for a huge number of people.


The camera cannot record imagination as quickly as the sketch book can, so no.

I believe the camera to be truthful in a sense of current reality down to the pixel, whereas the sketch book records strokes of memory.

I don't see "rolling tire 1972" as being something that can be evaluated for truth, it's art.

I believe storyboards to aid in the creativity process marginally, in comparison to their aid in helping others understand an architects ideas.


I consider "filmic architecture" to be the use of architecture in film, in order to produce a desired response in a given audience.

I cannot consider film to be architecture, because of the lack of space created by physical materials.

By my definition the Cabinet of Dr. Caligari fits filmic architecture.

Justin Woods said...
This comment has been removed by the author.