The art style is more realistic, similar to that of Incognegro, but with much more reliance on shadow and implied line. One of the most surprising artistic choices is the use of color, which is sparse (more widely used in the second half of the comic).
What are your personal opinions on the art used in King and how does it differ from the art in Incognegro? Why do you think Anderson made the art choices he did (pops of color, heavy shadows, incorporation of photographs)? What kind of mood and tone does the art style set for the comic?
On another note King is a interpretive biography, meaning it is a mix of both fact and fiction to create a cohesive narrative. What is your opinion of writing fiction into history? In this class we have read Autobiographys that incorporate fiction (Maus, and Persepolis). Do you think there is a difference using fiction in an autobiography versus a biography? Why or why not?
The art is much heavier than in Incognegro, in my opinion. The small amounts of color in the first half intrigue me a lot and I find them interesting because of the scarcity. However, I do find some of the art difficult to understand. I've sat and looked at images for quite some time and still not understood what I am looking at. I think the facial structure details are impeccable and deserved to be praised, but the angles could use some improvement.
ReplyDeleteOne of my favorite parts of the art in King is the use of actual photos. I was kind of thinking maybe he used this to shed light on his artistic style because the photos he uses look very similar to the shadowing and usage of his line weight.
I personally did not like the art style in this comic. To me it seemed very abstract and I often found it hard to distinguish between the different characters. This along with some of the dialogue bubble placement made this a difficult read for me. I do think that the abstract art and the harsh shading gave the book a dark and heavy mood, but I don't think that the art conveyed the story as well as the other works that we have read. Without the (hard to read) dialogue bubbles, there would have been no story at all.
ReplyDeleteI think that fiction has it's place in psuedo-historical pieces, but the author needs to be upfront about the distinction. The thing that I did like about King is that the fiction allowed MLK's character to be painted in a much more down-to-earth and humanized form that if it was going off of plain historical texts.
I liked the art style, but I understand what Taylor is saying about it being a bit distracting. I personally liked the shading, however, and found it fairly easy to follow. I really enjoyed the medium this story was told in. I think it worked perfectly. Most are educated on the historical perspectives of racism, so I think this was a cool way to see it portrayed.
ReplyDelete